dVersum MCP Server

Official

by dversum

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, from CRUD operations on clients, projects, tasks, and invoices to specialized actions like converting quotes or generating DATEV exports. The entities are clearly differentiated, and even within overlapping areas (e.g., tasks vs. subtasks), descriptions make boundaries clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_time_entry, delete_page). There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count1/5
With 152 tools, the surface is extremely large and unwieldy, far exceeding the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. Even for an all-in-one business suite, this count creates significant cognitive load and likely causes agent misselection.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an impressively broad domain with full CRUD for most entities (clients, contacts, projects, tasks, invoices, quotes, pages, folders, tags, areas) plus specialized workflows like reminders and recurring invoices. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update for received invoices, no file upload/update), but core business operations are well covered.
Average 3.3/5 across 152 of 152 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return values, permissions, or whether creation is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is a complete absence of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not earn its place because it merely repeats the tool name and provides no additional information, so it is more an under-specification than a concise, useful summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a 5-parameter tool with one required field and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention the required 'name' parameter, the 'status' enum, the relationship fields (area_id, client_id), or any behavior after creation. The description leaves the agent without critical execution context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the action. Since the schema already documents parameters, the description provides no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new project.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and provides no additional scope or detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_client or create_area. It fails to mention required fields or status options, making it a tautology rather than a purpose-clarifying statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_client or create_area. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states that time entries are listed and can be filtered, without explaining pagination, response format, or authentication requirements. The unsupported 'user' filter further undermines transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two sentences, the description is brief and front-loaded, but the second sentence is redundant and inaccurate given the schema. It could be more precise by omitting the unsupported user filter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple listing operation with five optional parameters and no output schema. The description fails to mention return value shape, default behavior without filters, or how pagination works, leaving the agent with considerable ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description's mention of a 'user' filter introduces a parameter not present in the schema, adding confusion rather than value. It does not clarify how filters combine or pagination defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation (list) and resource (time entries), and notes filtering capabilities. However, it claims 'user' as a filter while the input schema has no user parameter, making the description partially misleading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_entry, update_time_entry, or get_time_stats. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether all fields must be sent, or what the response contains. It adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is structurally concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified—saying 'details' adds almost no information beyond the tool name, so the sentence doesn't earn its place with substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain update semantics (partial vs. full, required fields, return value). It does none of this, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter (id, name, status, area_id, client_id, description). The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing project'), making the primary purpose obvious. However, it lacks any scope or differentiation from sibling update tools (e.g., update_task, update_client), and largely restates the tool name rather than adding new detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update). The only implied usage is the generic 'update project' meaning, which offers no help for selecting among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. The action 'approve' implies a state change but gives no behavioral detail beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It is appropriately front-loaded and free of filler, though it may be too terse to fully serve the other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and any contextual side effects, the description falls short. It does not explain what approval entails, return value, or how it interacts with other invoice tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema fully covers the only parameter (id) with a clear description ('The received invoice UUID'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('approve') and resource ('received invoice'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_received_invoices or get_received_invoice, though it doesn't elaborate on the approval's effect (e.g., status change).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as update_invoice_status. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist, not already approved) or potential alternative actions for approval workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. 'Archive' implies a state change, but no details are provided about what happens to the task or how it relates to restore_task.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence with no filler. However, it is arguably under-specified, which reduces its value, but it is still efficient in wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal but lacks important context about the effects of archiving, how it differs from deletion, and whether it is reversible. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('The task UUID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Archive a task'), indicating the action taken. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_task or restore_task, so it lacks explicit scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_task or restore_task. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new recurring invoice template' with no details on behaviors like whether it creates a draft, activates the template, or schedules future invoices. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more context about recurring invoice behavior could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters including line_items and no output schema, but the description does not explain the recurring invoice concept, how this template relates to generated invoices, or any side effects. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the overall behavior and context remain unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create) and the specific resource (recurring invoice template), which distinguishes it from one-time invoice tools like create_invoice. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or contrast them, so it lacks full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice or create_invoice_from_time. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without covering side effects, permissions, return values, or constraints. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, earning high marks for conciseness. However, it lacks any structural elements like parameter context or behavior notes, but given the simplicity, it is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, any required setup, or possible errors. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters (name and project_id) with meaningful descriptions, so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (whiteboard), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, get, update, delete, and duplicate whiteboards. It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it lacks detail about what a whiteboard is or contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_whiteboard or other create tools. It also does not mention any prerequisites or context like whether project_id is needed for project-scoped whiteboards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action 'Delete' without disclosing permanence, irreversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens to related data. The word 'delete' implies destruction, but the description fails to add useful context beyond the operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is zero wasted text, and for such a simple operation, this level of conciseness is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but it is a destructive mutation with no annotations, so the description should at minimum note permanence or the result of a successful deletion. It does not, leaving the agent without important contextual information about consequences or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as 'The event UUID', so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, this high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a calendar event'), which distinguishes it from create/update/get operations on events. However, it is essentially a rewording of the tool name and adds no additional detail about scope or behavior beyond the obvious action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_event or update_event for modifying rather than removing an event. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes about permanent deletion, so the agent receives no contextual instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state whether deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens to associated share links. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, lacking any behavioral context, so it does not fully earn the top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description is minimal but misses critical context like permanence and side effects on related resources (e.g., share links). This is especially important given the absence of annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter (id as file UUID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the simple schema. Per calibration, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (file), with the added scope 'from storage.' It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from other delete_* tools by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related file operations like revoke_share_link or delete_folder, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It is merely a declarative statement with no context. An agent would have no idea about the intended use case beyond the obvious action of deleting a file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Delete a whiteboard' does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, authorization requirements, or behavior for nonexistent IDs. It adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four words, no filler. It's efficient but under-specified; however, in terms of conciseness it earns full marks for structure, though the extreme brevity contributes to lack of content in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It lacks details on irreversibility, side effects, and error handling. A delete operation needs more than a minimal statement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'id' documented as 'The whiteboard UUID'. The description itself adds no parameter information, so baseline 3 applies per rubric since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'a whiteboard', clearly distinguishing from sibling whiteboard operations (create, update, duplicate, get, list) and other delete_* tools 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or mention related tools like get_whiteboard or update_whiteboard. The agent is given no context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details', adding no information about auth requirements, response format, or edge cases. While the operation is implicitly read-only, this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should indicate what 'details' are returned (e.g., name, settings, members). It also lacks contextual information such as permissions or whether the organization must be the caller's own. The single sentence covers the basic intent but is insufficient for complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema as 'The organization UUID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic nuance, which is acceptable given the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details about an organization, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings since no other tool focuses on organization details, though the exact scope of 'details' is unspecified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other getters, nor any alternatives or exclusions. The description is a bare statement with no context or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any specifics such as required permissions, error behavior for missing IDs, or what fields are included in the response. The description is minimal and relies on the inherent meaning of 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes or what the return structure looks like. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('The project UUID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'project', clearly indicating it retrieves information for a single project. It is implicitly distinct from list_projects (which lists all projects) and from project-specific tools like get_project_board, though it does not 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for retrieving a specific project by ID, but the description lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools such as list_projects or get_project_board.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it does not mention return format, permissions, error behavior, or pagination. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, earning the highest score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'details' includes or what the return value looks like. It does not, leaving the tool under-specified for agents that need to interpret the response. This is a clear gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('The received invoice UUID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('received invoice'), clearly indicating the tool's function. The German term 'Eingangsrechnung' adds clarity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or 'list_received_invoices', so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does. There is no mention of using it when you have an invoice UUID, nor any contrast with list_received_invoices or get_invoice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'get details' without addressing read-only guarantees, permissions, response format, or any side effects. The term 'get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed or elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still under-specified. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any acknowledgment of sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to determine when and how to invoke this tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'The reminder UUID' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a payment reminder' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (payment reminder), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like list_reminders by focusing on a single entity, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The required 'id' parameter implies you need a specific reminder UUID, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives (e.g., list_reminders), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' which implies read-only, but it does not explain aggregation behavior, date range handling, project filtering effects, or the response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and free of filler, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what statistics are returned and how the filters affect them. It does neither, and the existence of a sibling 'get_project_time_stats' suggests the scope (global vs project) is ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters themselves, only listing example statistics returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves time tracking statistics (total hours, billable hours, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_project_time_stats', which is likely similar but project-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or differences from related tools like 'get_project_time_stats' or 'list_time_entries'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely restates the tool's name ('List all comments on a task') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, return format, permissions, or edge cases. It adds no insight beyond the tool name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it is too brief to provide helpful context beyond the bare function. Still, it is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important details. It does not describe what information is returned for each comment (e.g., author, timestamp, body), nor does it clarify behavior like sorting or empty results. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter task_id is fully described in the schema as 'The task UUID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all comments on a task' clearly states the verb (list), resource (comments), and scope (task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_comment and other list tools (e.g., list_time_entries) by specifying comments as the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., create_comment for adding comments). The usage is only implied by the name and description, but no explicit direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'send via email,' which implies an external side effect, but does not mention potential consequences like marking the reminder as sent, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core function, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic action, leaving out important context such as what triggers a payment reminder, how overrides are used, and what the expected return value or confirmation is. This is under-specified for an AI agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'id' is the reminder UUID, 'to' overrides recipient email). The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a payment reminder via email, specifying the verb (send), resource (payment reminder), and medium (email). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like send_invoice_email or send_quote_email by the reminder resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the reminder lifecycle. It only states the action without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It only states 'Update' without disclosing behavioral details such as partial update semantics, required permissions, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though it still earns a strong score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention update semantics, return values, or partial update behavior, leaving substantial gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing calendar event'), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_event or delete_event, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, the required 'id', or situations where other event tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update organization settings' without explaining consequences, permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though perhaps too minimal, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what fields are updatable (name) or what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both id and name. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update organization settings' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (organization settings), distinguishing it from the many other update_* tools. However, it does not specify exactly which settings are updatable, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization or invite_member. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when this operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update an existing quote,' which implies the quote must already exist and that fields are modified, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial, how omitted fields are treated, or any permission requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior or update semantics, but it does not. It also lacks any differentiation from update_quote_status or update_quote_line_item. For an agent to use this correctly, it needs more context about what fields are mutable and what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (id, notes, valid_until) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing quote' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying this as the tool for modifying a quote. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_quote_status or update_quote_line_item by targeting the quote itself. However, it does not mention which fields can be updated, so it is clear but not maximally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no note about partial updates, and no mention of related tools like update_quote_status or add_quote_line_item. The context is entirely implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing supplier' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, partial update semantics, or expected return values, leaving significant gaps for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool with no annotations. It does not explain update behavior, prerequisites, or what happens beyond 'update', making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource structure, stating the tool updates an existing supplier. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools by resource name, though it lacks any additional scope or detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_supplier or delete_supplier. The description merely states the action without contextualizing it among related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether partial updates are allowed (PATCH vs PUT), permission requirements, reversibility, or the response format. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and grammatically clear, though quite sparse. It does not waste words but also does not add helpful expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is contextually incomplete. It fails to specify update semantics (e.g., whether all fields must be provided), error behavior, and response structure, leaving important gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond schema descriptions, which cover 100% of parameters. The phrase 'properties' is generic and does not clarify how parameters interact or whether they are individually optional. Baseline 3 applies because schema handles the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'existing task' and scope as 'properties.' This distinguishes it from create/delete/move task tools, though it does not enumerate which properties are updatable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or explicit alternatives like toggle_task_done for status changes. The usage context is only implicitly clear from the word 'existing.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full, whether fields are validated, if there are side effects (e.g., timer interactions), or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, even if minimal in detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It provides no context on update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update), typical use cases, or what the response contains. The description fails to compensate for the complexity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., id, task_id, billable). The description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource ('Update an existing time entry'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/list siblings. However, it doesn't specify what fields or scope of update, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_entry or delete_time_entry. The context is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether partial updates are supported. It lacks important context that an agent would need to safely invoke this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, even though it lacks detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not provide enough context for a complete understanding. It lacks usage scenarios, behavioral effects, and any guidance that would help an agent know when to apply this tool. The schema covers parameter semantics but not the broader operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('id' and 'name'), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update whiteboard metadata', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_whiteboard, delete_whiteboard, and get_whiteboard. However, 'metadata' is somewhat vague and does not specify exactly which fields can be changed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this over create or delete, or any exclusions. It merely states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention permissions required, behavior if the user is already a member, or any side effects. The only disclosed behavior is the add operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It is too terse, lacking details about prerequisites, error cases, or relationship to invite_member. Users are left guessing about edge cases and required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters (user_id and project_id) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a member to a project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_project_member and list_project_members, and the name reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invite_member (which likely adds organization members) or update_project for changing membership. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new contact' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or what happens on creation, providing no transparency beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention required fields, expected behavior, or return value, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new contact' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_contact, delete_contact, and list_contacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for creating a contact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new supplier' and offers no information about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the operation is a safe write. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, simple sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, stating exactly what the tool does without any fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks essential contextual details. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what happens on success (e.g., return value), any required preconditions, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters, the overall picture is incomplete for an 8-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because the schema already provides complete semantic meaning for all 8 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new supplier' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('supplier'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_supplier, delete_supplier, list_suppliers, and get_supplier. Even though it largely restates the tool name, it accurately and unambiguously conveys the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context such as typical use cases. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is used for creating new suppliers without any explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, if it cascades to related data, or any side effects. The bare statement 'Delete an absence entry' offers no insight into the operation's consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatical sentence with no fluff or repetitive information. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to address reversibility, impact on associated records, or potential errors, leaving an agent without key context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, with the id described as 'The absence UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'absence entry', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_absence and update_absence by indicating a removal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where update_absence might be more appropriate. The usage context is assumed rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Delete a supplier.' without mentioning permanence, cascading effects, permissions, or any post-deletion consequences. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, effectively conveying the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is operationally incomplete. It fails to convey important context such as irreversibility, related data affected, or any required permissions, leaving the agent without critical decision-making information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes the only parameter id as 'The supplier UUID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a supplier.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_client and delete_project. It unambiguously identifies the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_supplier or update_supplier, nor any prerequisites or cautionary notes. The description just states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', but does not specify whether updates are partial (PATCH-like), whether unspecified fields are preserved, what side effects may occur (e.g., recalculating invoice totals), or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is extremely minimal and adds little value over the tool name itself, making it borderline under-specified. It is not as informative as the 'update_drive' example which listed specific fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a 6-parameter tool, the description provides insufficient context. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and any note about effects on the invoice or return values. The schema helps with parameters but the description alone does not make the tool fully comprehensible for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the baseline rule, this scores 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Update') and the target resource ('a line item on an invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the resource as a line item, differentiating it from add/delete line item and update invoice tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying existing line items or that it should be used instead of adding or deleting. The verb 'update' implies usage, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. It does not mention valid status transitions, side effects, permissions, reversibility, or anything beyond the bare action. The agent is left without critical context for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no wasted words, but it is extremely terse. It provides no extra context or structure beyond the bare action, making it somewhat under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and the schema thoroughly documents the parameters, the description omits any information about behavior, return values, or state transition constraints. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally complete and leaves significant assumptions to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters: 'id' as quote UUID and 'status' with an enum of allowed values. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already establishes, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('the status of a quote'), clearly distinguishing it from the broader 'update_quote' tool and related quote actions like 'convert_quote_to_invoice'. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_quote' or 'convert_quote_to_invoice'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It merely says 'Update' without detailing partial vs full replacement, field mutability, side effects, auth needs, or response behavior. This is a minimal mutation description with zero additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is as concise as possible and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what changes are allowed, how it affects recurring invoice state (e.g., pause/resume/generate), or what the result looks like. The sibling tools suggest related operations, but no context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (id, notes, interval, next_date) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but given the full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'recurring invoice template', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_recurring_invoice and delete_recurring_invoice. It also differentiates from update_invoice by targeting the recurring invoice template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It only states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action 'create' and offers no details about side effects, required permissions, validation, default behaviors, or response format. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no redundant words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to mention required fields, default behaviors (e.g., all_day or create_meet_link), or what the agent should expect in response, making it insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents each field with types and descriptions, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Create a new calendar event.' This distinguishes it from event-related siblings like update_event and delete_event, and from other create_* tools like create_task or create_client.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used, such as updating an existing event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose whether the duplicate is a full copy with line items, whether it creates a new status, or what is returned, leaving behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool this is adequate, but with no annotations or output schema it lacks detail about the duplication behavior and result. It would be more complete with a note on what is copied or returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'id' parameter is already fully described in the schema ('The quote UUID to duplicate'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'duplicate' and resource 'existing quote', clearly distinguishing it from create/update/delete/send quote siblings. It is essentially the name spelled out, but still provides a clear one-sentence purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_quote or convert_quote_to_invoice, nor any mention of prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the recent activity feed' without explaining what the feed contains, whether it supports filtering or pagination, or what the response format is. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and for a zero-parameter tool this is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the return value is. It does not. Given the simplicity of the tool, some statement about the content or structure of the activity feed is needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe. This is appropriate for the schema coverage of 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the recent activity feed'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose, but it does not distinguish this from siblings like list_notifications or get_unread_count, which may overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notifications or get_unread_count. The description offers no 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states 'Get details', implying a read operation without explicitly confirming safety, response format, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about return values, possible errors, or how it differs from related file operations such as get_file_download_url.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter as 'The file UUID', so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get details') on a specific resource ('file'), but it does not specify what 'details' encompasses or differentiate from sibling tools like get_file_download_url or list_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Get details' without disclosing return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). No additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is sufficiently concise, though it borders on being too minimal by closely mirroring the tool name without adding substantial detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too vague about what 'details' actually include. It does not indicate the response structure, any filters, or edge cases, leaving the agent with incomplete information for invoking and interpreting the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'The recurring invoice UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details of a recurring invoice template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_recurring_invoices and get_invoice. It precisely conveys that this tool fetches a single recurring invoice template by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_recurring_invoices or get_invoice. It only states what the tool does, with no 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It merely says 'list team absences' without outlining whether it returns only current absences, supports filtering, or requires any permissions. No details about output structure or side effects are given, leaving the agent without adequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three optional filters fully described in the schema, which reduces the description's burden. However, with no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the response contains, such as whether it returns a list of absence objects or any pagination info. Given the schema's richness, the description is adequate but could improve by mentioning the return format or filtering capability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (type, start_date, end_date) are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the examples in the text, which merely echo the enum values. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists team absences and gives concrete examples of absence types (vacation, sick leave, home office), which distinguishes it from other absence-related tools like create_absence or get_vacation_stats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_time_entries or list_events, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over get_vacation_stats or how to combine with create_absence. The only implied usage is that it lists absences, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List recurring invoice templates,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, return structure, or any other side effects or requirements. The minimal phrasing adds little beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It avoids verbosity, though it is somewhat under-specified; this is a conciseness strength rather than a weakness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what a recurring invoice template is, how pagination works, or what the response includes. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'page' and 'per_page' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already documents the pagination parameters sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List recurring invoice templates' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('recurring invoice templates'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_invoices and list_received_invoices. It is unambiguous and matches the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that one uses it to list recurring invoices, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or reference to related tools such as create_recurring_invoice or get_recurring_invoice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing via the verb 'List' but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any safety/authorization implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. The German term in parentheses is a minor embellishment but does not detract from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only states the purpose. It does not explain what data is returned, how pagination works, or any caveats, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation and result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'page' and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'payment reminders (Mahnungen)', which distinguishes it from generic reminder tools like get_reminder and from list_invoices. The parenthetical German term adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pagination, intended scenarios, or how it compares to list_invoices or other reminder-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single phrase 'Record a payment' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose side effects such as whether the invoice balance is updated, whether overpayment is allowed, or whether the payment can be reversed. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is quite sparse; while concise, it could have added a brief contextual note without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain the effect on the invoice, preconditions, or what the tool returns. For its complexity, the description is under-specified and leaves key questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and there are no enums or nested objects requiring extra explanation. A score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Record a payment on an invoice.' This is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling invoice tools like update_invoice_status or create_credit_note by focusing on payment recording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., invoice must be open), or when to prefer an alternative like update_invoice_status or create_credit_note. There is no implied context beyond the literal action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavior. It only states 'update' without disclosing whether it performs a full replacement or partial update, any permission requirements, side effects, or return behavior. The phrase 'existing contact' mildly implies it does not create new contacts, but this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to read, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It does not add information beyond a restatement of the tool name, offering little value per sentence. While not verbose, it lacks the front-loaded context that would elevate it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain which fields are updatable, whether the update is partial or full, what the response includes, or any required permissions. The tool has enough complexity that the one-line description leaves the agent without critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the generic word 'details', matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update an existing contact's details' with a specific verb (Update), resource (contact), and scope (existing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contact or delete_contact, and from updates to other resources (update_client, update_event).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing contact but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_contact for new contacts) or any preconditions. It does not mention what fields can be updated or how to identify the contact, relying entirely on the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that the status is updated and gives examples; it does not mention validation rules for status transitions, side effects like notifications, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with a parenthetical example. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with two required parameters and a full enum, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly with the schema alone. However, the lack of behavioral details and absence of an output schema or annotations means the description does not fully cover all aspects, like validation constraints or return values. It is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters: 'id' as a UUID string and 'status' with an enum of allowed values. The description repeats some enum values (e.g., paid, cancelled) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource 'the status of an invoice', with examples of valid statuses (sent, paid, cancelled). It clearly differentiates from the broader 'update_invoice' tool by focusing exclusively on the status field, though it does not explicitly name this sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_invoice' or 'record_payment' (which may also affect status). The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit context or exclusionary instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update' without disclosing whether content is fully replaced or merged, required permissions, failure behavior on invalid Tiptap, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks important behavioral context (replacement semantics, prerequisites) and doesn't clarify the distinction from 'update_page', which would help the agent choose the correct tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'id' and 'content'. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a page's content'), and mentions the Tiptap JSON format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_page' (which likely updates other page properties), so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_page' or other update tools. There are no context cues, exclusions, or example scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behaviors. It only says 'add' without mentioning side effects, permissions, recalculation of totals, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the operation is simple and parameters are fully described in the schema, the description lacks any context about prerequisites, behavior, or expected outcomes. With no annotations or output schema, the tool description is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Add a line item to an invoice.' It directly indicates the action and target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_invoice_line_item and add_quote_line_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., add_quote_line_item) or any prerequisites such as the invoice existing. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that a new absence entry is created, omitting details about permissions, side effects, validation rules, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words, effectively sized for the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks usage context, behavioral expectations, and return value information, leaving the agent under-informed for a multi-parameter create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described. The description adds minor context by listing example types (vacation, sick leave), which slightly enhances the 'type' enum but does not meaningfully compensate beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'absence entry', with examples like vacation and sick leave. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as update_absence, delete_absence, and list_absences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_absence, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects, permissions, uniqueness constraints, or return values, which are especially relevant for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must cover return behavior and constraints. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether names must be unique, or any other operational details, leaving it incomplete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for both parameters (name and color), and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, keeping the score at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and distinct resource 'project area/group', clearly indicating a creation operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like update_area and delete_area through the verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_area or delete_area. The description simply states what it does without context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious 'create' action and adds no context about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or consequences of creating a duplicate client. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the required 'name' field, any constraints or validation rules, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The concise phrasing provides no contextual depth beyond the bare function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already fully describes all 10 parameters. The description provides no additional meaning, but the schema adequately covers the parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new client in the organization' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_client, delete_client, and list_clients. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to similar tools like create_contact or list_clients. The usage is only implied, with no explicit context or alternatives given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention side effects on the invoice (e.g., marking as credited), authorization needs, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, side effects, and usage context. Even for a simple one-parameter tool, more detail is needed for an AI agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides full coverage for the single parameter (invoice_id with description 'The original invoice UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for an invoice' adds minimal context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create), the resource (a credit note), and the target (an invoice). It distinguishes from potential siblings like create_cancellation by using the specific term 'Gutschrift' and specifying 'for an invoice'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_cancellation or other invoice-related tools. No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it creates a reminder but does not disclose behavior such as whether it validates overdue status, auto-detects level, or has side effects. No mention of permissions or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not explain return values or behavioral expectations. For a create operation, the agent would need to know whether the created reminder is returned, whether the invoice must be overdue, and whether any email is sent automatically. This is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Create' and identifies resource 'payment reminder (Mahnung)' and context 'overdue invoice'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_reminder_email and get_reminder_suggestion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create vs send a reminder, or any prerequisites like invoice being overdue. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses that contents are deleted (recursive deletion) but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects like invalidating links or assignments. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the action and scope without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, the description omits critical context such as irreversibility, what 'contents' includes (subfolders, files), and the expected response. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks sufficient information to fully understand consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents the single 'id' parameter with description 'The folder UUID', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that the id identifies the folder to delete, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a folder and explicitly notes it deletes all contents, making it specific to folder resources and distinguishing it from other delete_* sibling tools. The verb and resource are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that this should be used for permanent removal or any context about operations that might conflict.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the deletion is permanent, if it recalculates quote totals, or any side effects—significant for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain expected behavior after deletion (e.g., whether it returns a confirmation, whether it is idempotent), leaving the agent with incomplete operational knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (quote_id and item_id as UUIDs). The description adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'line item' within a 'quote', which is specific and immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_quote or delete_invoice_line_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., quote exists) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if quote is converted to invoice), leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, whether there are cascading effects, or what response is returned. This leaves a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no filler, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the operation is simple, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description must cover return behavior and side effects. It does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or what the success/failure response looks like, leaving the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single 'id' parameter as 'The reminder UUID', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema provides sufficient detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a payment reminder', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reminder and get_reminder. It names both the action and the resource being acted upon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_reminders or send_reminder_email, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage context is implied by the tool's name and the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a tag.' but does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, cascades to task associations, or requires specific permissions. This is a destructive operation with insufficient context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool, though it could include more behavioral context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one schema-documented parameter, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any note about permanent effects or related cleanup, leaving the agent with incomplete context about consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully covers the single parameter 'id' with 'The tag UUID', and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a tag.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_task or delete_contact. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention relationships to add_tag_to_task/remove_tag_from_task or situations where deletion is appropriate versus removing an association.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not describe the return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. The mention of specific Kennzahlen adds content context but not behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary words. It could include a bit more context, but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description identifies the specific VAT summary and Kennzahlen, but it does not explain the return structure or how the quarter parameter affects the result. Relying on the schema for quarter behavior is acceptable, but the description alone is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (year and quarter), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a VAT pre-return summary with specific Kennzahlen (81, 86, 66, 83). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from broader finance tools like get_finance_overview or get_datev_export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., get_finance_overview) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state whether listing notifications modifies their read state, how pagination behaves, or what authentication is required. The word 'list' hints at non-destructive behavior but lacks explicit assurance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning the maximum score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description underspecifies key details such as what 'recent' means, whether unread/read filtering is possible, and the response format. Given the abundance of notification-related sibling tools, the description lacks the contextual depth needed for reliable tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'page' (0-based) and 'per_page', so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description provides no extra semantic value beyond the temporal qualifier 'recent', which is a minor addition to the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'notifications' and adds the temporal scope 'recent', clearly stating the tool's function. It is unambiguous and can be easily distinguished from sibling tools like mark_notification_read, despite not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus notification-related alternatives such as get_unread_count or mark_all_notifications_read. The description simply states the action without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There is no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields are returned, leaving the semantics of 'all pages' ambiguous given the page and per_page parameters. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and doesn't disclose result structure, authentication, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant details. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description fails to clarify whether 'all pages' means all pages in the system or a page of results per the pagination arguments. It also doesn't indicate the response structure, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both parameters (page and per_page) with clear descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about how to use the parameters, so it does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'pages' and clarifies the page type as Notion-like documents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page (single page) or list_files (files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_page or get_page_tree, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The description only states the action without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all suppliers' without mentioning pagination behavior, potential performance implications, or that results may be limited by page/per_page parameters. The word 'all' could mislead agents into expecting a complete, unpaginated response when the schema indicates pagination is possible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource. The parenthetical German translation is a minor addition that does not detract from conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify the return format, pagination semantics, or any filtering/sorting capabilities. Given the presence of pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both 'page' and 'per_page' have individual descriptions, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but as per baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all suppliers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_supplier (single entity), create_supplier, update_supplier, and delete_supplier by covering all suppliers. The German translation 'Lieferanten' adds clarity for non-English users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or relationships with sibling tools like list_received_invoices or get_supplier. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the definition carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the literal action and does not reveal side effects (e.g., details about the original project status, preservation of subtasks or assignees, reversibility) or permissions required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It captures the essential purpose efficiently, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the necessity of column_id, the impact on the task's original project, or what the operation returns. This minimal information may lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions about side effects, especially given the absence of richer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three required parameters (id, project_id, column_id). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Move a task to a different project' clearly states the action (move) and the target resource (task) with a specific scope (different project). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'move_task' tool, which likely refers to moving within a project, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_task', nor does it mention prerequisites such as user permissions or task/project access. The only implied usage is from the name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between similar task-moving tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. No contradiction, but significant gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient and front-loaded, though minimal in detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two fully described parameters and no output schema, making this a minimally viable description. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral details prevents it from being more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters ('task_id' and 'user_id'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('an assignee from a task'), using specific vocabulary that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'assign_task' and 'remove_tag_from_task'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the operation, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining consequences such as irreversibility, cascading effects on user data, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal for a destructive action. It does not address side-effects, reversibility, or edge cases, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to make informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description needs no additional parameter info. However, it doesn't add context beyond the schema, such as whether removal is soft or hard, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a member from the organization'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'remove_project_member' by specifying the organization context, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_project_member' or 'update_member_role'. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update an existing client's details' gives no information about partial vs. full replacement, behavior when the id doesn't exist, response format, or authorization requirements. It is a bare mutation statement with no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD operation and front-loaded with the key verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides the basic action. It omits contextual details such as update semantics, error handling, return value expectations, and prerequisites. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for all 11 parameters, providing 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing client's details'). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_client or delete_client. The verb 'Update' and the word 'existing' imply the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'existing client' implies it should be used when modifying a client that already exists, but no alternatives are named. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Update') without explaining whether it performs partial updates, what happens if the item does not exist, auth requirements, or return values. It adds no context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient for a simple update operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives no operational context (e.g., whether it returns an updated object, error behavior, required permissions). It is not complete for a mutation tool; the schema covers parameters but not semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but per baseline for high schema coverage, the schema carries the meaning. No gaps in parameter definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a line item on a quote' clearly states the verb (update), resource (line item), and scope (on a quote). It distinguishes from siblings like add_quote_line_item, delete_quote_line_item, and update_quote by specifying the exact operation and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention fields that can be modified, prerequisites (e.g., quote existence), or cases where adding/deleting line items would be more appropriate. The description gives no exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the tag must already exist), idempotency, side effects, or return values, leaving the tool's behavior opaque beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simple operation, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and complete parameter schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as whether the tag must already exist, how duplicate tags are handled, and what the API returns. For a simple association tool, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because both parameters (tag_id and task_id) have descriptive text in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already fully documents the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Add') and specifies the resource ('a tag to a task'), which precisely conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_tag_from_task and create_tag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_tag, assign_task, or remove_tag_from_task. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Add' implying a mutation, but does not mention permissions, success/failure behavior, whether comments are appended, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is entirely front-loaded and every word contributes to stating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks behavioral and usage context, such as whether the task must exist or what happens on success, making it not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as both task_id and body have descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter details, but since the schema fully documents them, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource 'comment to a task.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_task_comments by explicitly stating the creation action, and from update_task by focusing on adding a new comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites like task existence, or contexts favoring create_comment over other comment-related operations. The description simply states the action without contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new folder.' only restates the action and adds no information about permissions, side effects, response format, or behavior for edge cases. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with well-documented parameters, but the absence of any annotation about safety or return value leaves gaps. For a create operation with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the response looks like or what happens if the folder already exists. It is minimally adequate but lacks enriching context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (name, color, parent_id), each with a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new folder.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like update_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders. It is direct and unambiguous about the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. It simply states the action with no contextual advice for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention required fields (e.g., title), default behavior, permissions, return values, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it closely mirrors the tool name, adding minimal value beyond the name itself, so it is not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain behavior around required vs optional fields, nesting via parent_id, project scoping, or what the tool returns. This is incomplete for an effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new page' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page, update_page, and delete_page by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a new page is needed but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is minimally adequate but lacks clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not mention any side effects, validation rules (e.g., unique tag names), required permissions, or return behavior, which is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation and is front-loaded with the essential action, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is adequate at a basic level but lacks context about the tag's role in the system or whether the created tag is returned. It does not mention how tags relate to tasks or any unique 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'color' already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 set by the rubric for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new tag' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_tag, delete_tag, and list_tags by specifying the create operation, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_tag or add_tag_to_task. The description merely restates the action without explaining prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Delete', which implies destructiveness, but provides no details on cascade effects, reversibility, or potential failures (e.g., if the area contains projects). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the essential purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and avoids unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one fully described parameter, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important contextual details such as side effects, error conditions, or user requirements. Given the simplicity and the schema richness, a score of 3 reflects the adequate but incomplete nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its description 'The area UUID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 target resource ('project area/group'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_area, update_area, and list_areas by explicitly indicating a delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention whether an area must be empty before deletion or if there are restrictions based on user permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'generate' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it sends an email, whether it can be triggered multiple times, or what happens to the recurring schedule). Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks any explanation of the return value or success criteria. Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the caller can expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'The recurring invoice UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Manually generate an invoice from a recurring template now.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishes from sibling tools like pause/resume or create, and conveys immediacy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for immediate manual triggering, nor does it contrast with scheduled generation or other recurring invoice actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It only promises 'detailed information' without disclosing error behaviors (e.g., 404 if not found), required auth scopes, or the specific fields returned. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 10-word sentence clearly states the action, target, and lookup key, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter, the description is adequate but not complete: it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether the response is a full client object, or how errors like missing IDs are handled. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate but only partially does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents id as 'The client UUID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the parameter's purpose without adding semantic richness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client') with filter 'by ID', making its function clear. It distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings through the phrase 'specific client by ID,' though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a single client's detailed data is needed, but gives no explicit guidance about when to use list_clients for overviews or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detailed information' without specifying read-only nature, error conditions, or response format. For a simple get, this is minimal but does not disclose potential edge cases like nonexistent contact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clearly written sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains its general purpose, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter as 'The contact UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific contact, using the verb 'Get' and resource 'contact'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts (retrieving multiple) and create/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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning that it should be used when a specific contact ID is known, or that list_contacts should be used for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the URL expires, requires authentication, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic operation. The term 'presigned URL' implies some temporary nature, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what happens with the returned URL (e.g., expiration, access permissions) nor when to use it. Given no output schema, the return value is only implied, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (id) with a clear description ('The file UUID'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('presigned download URL') with an object ('a file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file or create_share_link. It fully states what the tool accomplishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_share_link or get_file. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read intent of 'Get.' There is no mention of data sources, potential latency, permission requirements, or return format. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that immediately conveys the core function. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the key detail ('monthly revenue vs expenses') is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential idea but omits useful details like the structure of the breakdown (e.g., per-month keys, whether net amounts are included) or behavior for empty/future years. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could do more, but it is not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already defines the 'year' parameter with a description and default value (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a given year' simply reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no additional syntax, range, or format guidance. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the financial overview — monthly revenue vs expenses breakdown for a given year.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the detail about monthly revenue vs expenses distinguishes it from finance siblings like get_vat_summary or list_invoices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of higher-level aggregation vs. detailed invoice data or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not disclose error behavior, return format, or whether it includes hidden/deleted tasks. Lacks context beyond the basic retrieval intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description's overview of Gantt data (tasks, dates, dependencies) is helpful. However, it omits any detail about response structure or failure modes, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the only parameter 'id' as 'The project UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond confirming the data is project-scoped. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Gantt chart data for a project, specifying content as 'tasks with dates and dependencies.' This distinguishes it from sibling project-related tools like get_project_board or get_task by naming the Gantt-specific view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project ID, nor does it exclude cases where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that invitations are sent 'via email', but does not explain side effects like whether acceptance is required, duplicate handling, permissions needed, or the nature of the resulting member record.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence of about ten words with no filler. It front-loads the key verb and object, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter invite tool with full schema coverage, the one-line description provides the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details such as what happens after the invitation is sent, the default role assignment, or expected output. The lack of annotations and output schema leaves room for more context, though the tool is relatively straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is fully self-describing with descriptions for all three parameters, including the role enum and its default. The description adds little beyond 'new member' and 'via email', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing additional elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('invite'), the target ('new member'), and the channel ('via email'), which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_member or update_member_role. It conveys the core purpose unambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions such as existing members or domain restrictions. The phrase 'new member' implies scope but does not provide clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether associated task assignments are also removed), reversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks contextual information about the consequences of removing a project member (e.g., impact on tasks) and how it differs from organization member removal, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (project_id and user_id), so the schema already provides the necessary semantic meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema says, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a member from a project' clearly states the action and the target resource. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_project_member, remove_member, and remove_assignee by referencing the project membership context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify that this is for project-level memberships only, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions that would help an agent decide between this tool and similar ones like remove_member or remove_assignee.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as reversibility, idempotency, auth requirements, or response behavior, similar to the mid-tier example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal operation with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks any context about side effects, success/failure behavior, or exceptions. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a score of 3 reflects that it is minimally viable but could do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both tag_id and task_id described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a tag from a task' uses a specific verb (Remove) and clearly identifies the resource (tag from a task). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_tag_to_task and other task operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, refer to sibling tools, or state exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states 'update' with no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error behavior. This leaves the agent without crucial context for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must provide complete context. It fails to explain return format, partial vs. full update behavior, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing absence entry.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('absence entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_absence and delete_absence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying existing absence entries, contrasting with create_absence for new entries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level action and fails to disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed), the permissions required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary detail, though it is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a three-parameter schema, the description lacks important context such as partial update semantics, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This incomplete context leaves the agent uncertain about usage and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters (id, name, color). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that name and color are updatable, so it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update), the resource (folder), and the specific fields affected (name or color). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder and delete_folder, and it is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to modify a folder's name or color, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There is no discussion of preconditions or comparison to other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permission requirements, ir/reversibility, or what happens to the member's existing role. For a mutation operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the core function. However, it lacks behavioral context such as permissions or effect on existing data, making it less complete than ideal for a mutation without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'member's role', which mirrors the tool name and adds nothing new.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource 'member's role' in the organization. It distinguishes this tool from sibling actions like invite_member or remove_member, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invite_member, remove_member, or list_members. There is no explicit context or preferred use case beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to provide safety or mutation context. The description only states the action and fields, but does not disclose whether updates are partial, what happens on missing pages, or any permission requirements. For a mutating tool with no annotation support, this leaves important behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and lists the relevant fields. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema fully describes parameters, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, given the closely related sibling update_page_content, the description could explicitly clarify that content updates are out of scope. No behavioral notes (e.g., idempotency) are provided, making it merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description adds only a grouping term 'metadata' over what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra parameter-level semantics are introduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a page's metadata', listing the specific fields (title, icon, parent). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_page_content by specifying it handles metadata, not content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes update_page_content, and while the purpose clarity implies a distinction, the description does not directly state 'for content use update_page_content' or any other exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool updates tag properties but omits details about permissions, error handling, idempotency, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose while remaining appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, but the description lacks usage context (e.g., how to obtain the tag UUID) and behavioral details. It provides the minimum viable information but does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the basics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description restates the fields ('name or color') but adds no additional context or constraints beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('a tag'), and specifically identifies the updatable fields ('name or color'). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like create_tag and delete_tag, as well as other update tools targeting different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_tag or delete_tag. The description only states what the tool does, offering no explicit context or exclusions for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the quote total is recalculated, any status restrictions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence that earns its place. It is concise and free of fluff, fitting the tool's simple purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks important context about behavior like price recalculation, required quote status, or the relationship to update_quote_line_item, leaving the agent to infer critical usage constraints from the name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already defines, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a line item to a quote' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from invoice line item and other quote operations like update_quote_line_item or delete_quote_line_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—for adding a line item to a quote—but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing update_quote_line_item for modifications. No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided beyond the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the 'draft' status, but does not disclose side effects, required client existence, validation rules, permissions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the essential purpose and state without redundancy, earning the highest conciseness score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 5 parameters, a nested array, and no output schema, the description offers little beyond the schema. It omits behavioral context like what 'draft' implies for the invoice lifecycle, whether line items are required, how the client is referenced, or what response to expect. The schema covers parameter naming, but the overall tool context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only highlights the client relationship. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new draft invoice for a client' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's action and output state ('draft'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice_from_time or convert_quote_to_invoice, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—creating a draft invoice from scratch—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice_from_time or convert_quote_to_invoice. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without explaining effects of parameters, prerequisites, return value, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (presumably the share link URL), any prerequisites like file existence, or how optional parameters affect the created link. An agent would need to infer these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by hinting at WeTransfer-style controls, but does not elaborate on how password, max_downloads, or expires_in_days interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' with the resource 'a share link for a file'. The parenthetical 'WeTransfer-style' adds context that this is a shareable link with customizable options like password, expiry, and download limits, distinguishing it from related tools like get_file_download_url and revoke_share_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'WeTransfer-style' (sharing files with controlled access) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_file_download_url. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a subtask is created, with no mention of side effects, permissions, prerequisites, or return behavior. While 'create' implies mutation, it adds no further context about what happens after creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence: 'Create a subtask (checklist item) on a task.' It is front-loaded with the action, includes a clarifying parenthetical for the resource type, and contains no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the purpose and scope, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it omits any mention of return values or behavioral side effects, which would be helpful in the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (task_id and title) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it sits at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('subtask (checklist item)') and specifies the scope ('on a task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, which creates top-level tasks, and create_comment, which adds comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as create_task for top-level tasks or add_tag_to_task for tagging. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must clearly disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a task is created, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, behavior when parent_id is set, or what the response contains. This is minimal and leaves much to be inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of six words, with no redundancy or filler. It is exactly as concise as possible while staying clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus the presence of 7 parameters and many related sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not provide enough context about behavioral outcomes, prerequisites, or when to choose this tool over create_subtask. The agent would need to rely on the schema and tool name to fill in significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (task), and the specific context (in a project column). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_subtask and create_comment by specifying the placement. This is both specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when creating a task in a project column, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like create_subtask, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage only, with no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'This cannot be undone,' which clearly communicates irreversibility—an important destructive trait. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on related data, or any other behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences and 9 words total, immediately front-loading the core action ('Delete a quote') and key caveat. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, this description is sufficient: it names the action, target resource, and critical caveat. It lacks deeper context like post-deletion behavior or restrictions, but none are strictly necessary for a basic delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema 100% describes the only parameter (id: 'The quote UUID'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a quote' clearly states the specific action (delete) and resource (quote), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_quote_line_item or delete_task, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether a quote can be deleted after conversion. Users must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that duplication occurs but does not disclose whether this modifies the original, what permissions are required, what the new whiteboard is named, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant details. Every word adds value, and the key action and object are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple—one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description and schema together cover the essential semantics of duplicating a whiteboard by ID. Minor gaps remain (e.g., return value, side effects on original), but for this low complexity, the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The whiteboard UUID to duplicate'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Duplicate') and the resource ('an existing whiteboard'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling whiteboard tools such as get_whiteboard and update_whiteboard by naming the unique duplicate operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer list/get/create/update instead of duplicate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'preview or download' but does not clarify what each implies (e.g., whether download triggers file generation, whether it is read-only, or any side effects). This remains ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, achieving high clarity with minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain the difference between preview and download, the data format returned, or any constraints on year/month. While the tool is simple, the description leaves critical context unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear definitions for 'year' and 'month'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves DATEV export data for preview or download. The resource ('DATEV export data') and target ('tax advisor') are specific, and no sibling tool overlaps with this exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: use when you need DATEV export data for a tax advisor. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the tool's role from its name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral details. It adds only 'with its full content', but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing pages, or any authentication requirements. The natural 'get' implies a read, but that is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns ('full content') and implies a single resource retrieval. However, it could benefit from a note about the response format or error behavior, but given the low complexity, the current level is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with description 'The page UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter context. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a page with its full content' clearly states the action (get) and resource (a page), with a qualifier that it returns full content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages (listing multiple pages) and get_page_tree (hierarchical structure).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context such as needing a specific page ID or when to prefer get_page over list_pages or get_page_tree. The tool name implies single-page retrieval, but that is inferred, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'auto-detects level and fees' which adds some behavioral detail, but it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the returned suggestion contains, or what 'level' and 'fees' refer to. It does not disclose any side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the suggested reminder looks like (text? object?), what the 'level' and 'fees' auto-detection produces, or any potential side effects. An agent may invoke it correctly but lacks context on the expected outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full description for invoice_id ('The overdue invoice UUID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond reinforcing the invoice context, so the schema already handles the semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'suggested reminder' and scopes it to 'overdue invoice', also noting auto-detection of level and fees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reminder or create_reminder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a contextual use case ('for an overdue invoice') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_reminder or list_reminders, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the invoice being overdue. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope, without mentioning whether inactive members are included, pagination behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a list operation, this leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully self-contained. It does not specify the return format, pagination, or any other behavior that an agent might need to correctly interpret the result. While the operation is simple, the lack of these details leaves meaningful gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter ('The organization UUID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('members') scoped to an organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_members and list_contacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use when you need all members of an organization identified by the provided UUID. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, such as 'for project members, use list_project_members'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state change ('mark as read'), but does not mention idempotency, whether it affects unread counts, or any error conditions. For a simple mutation, this is adequate but has clear gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one clearly described parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention that it operates on a single notification, but the singular phrasing and schema imply this. It is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as 'The notification UUID'. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Mark a notification as read.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the singular 'a notification' distinguishes it from the sibling tool mark_all_notifications_read. However, it does not explicitly highlight this contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_all_notifications_read or get_unread_count. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and singular wording, not explicitly described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the basic action and does not disclose side effects, default recipient handling, override capability, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description leaves out important context such as how the recipient is determined, what 'to' overrides, and any prerequisites. The description is too sparse to be fully complete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (send), the object (invoice), and the medium (email), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_quote_email and send_reminder_email by specifying 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as the invoice needing to exist, and no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning whether existing assignees are replaced, if the operation is idempotent, or what happens on duplicate assignment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequately sized, but it lacks important behavioral context such as whether a task can have multiple assignees or if calling this tool replaces existing assignments. Given no output schema, this would be useful for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (task UUID and user UUID). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the operation, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('assignee') with a specific target ('task'). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'remove_assignee' by indicating the opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: this tool is for adding an assignee to a task. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, prerequisites, and post-conditions. It does not mention what happens to the quote after conversion, whether the operation is reversible, or any required permissions, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately short but could have included additional context in the same space, so it is not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a state-changing conversion tool, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the relationship between the quote and the resulting invoice, whether the quote status changes, or what the tool returns. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter ('The quote UUID to convert'), and the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond reusing the term 'accepted quote'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (convert) and the resources involved (accepted quote to draft invoice). It uses a specific verb and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_invoice or update_quote_status, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'accepted quote' implies the tool is only appropriate for quotes in the accepted state, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original invoice is marked as cancelled, if it creates a standalone document, or any permission requirements). The description is just a restatement of the core action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description conveys the basic purpose, but it lacks details about the return value or the effect on the original invoice. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter invoice_id is already described as 'The original invoice UUID'. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the object ('a cancellation invoice'), and the context ('for an invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice and create_credit_note by using the specific German term 'Stornorechnung'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to cancel an existing invoice, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives such as create_credit_note or update_invoice_status. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'creates' a column, which implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., duplicate column names), or whether changes are immediately visible. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic purpose identification but lacks behavioral details like return value or error scenarios. It is sufficient for a simple create operation but leaves some gaps for an agent invoking it autonomously.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented with 'Column name' and 'The project UUID'. The description adds minimal value by linking the project_id to the kanban board context, but it does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('column in a project's kanban board'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or create_project by specifying the kanban board context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to add a column to a kanban board, but it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—irreversibility—via 'This cannot be undone', but it does not mention permissions, cascading effects on related records, or what happens after deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation and a critical consequence without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter delete tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the basic action and irreversibility. However, it omits context about side effects or related data (e.g., whether deleting a client affects projects, invoices, or contacts), which would be valuable for a delete operation with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter 'id' as 'The client UUID' (100% coverage). The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'client', and identifies that lookup is by ID. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_contact or delete_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating or archiving a client. The only extra signal is 'This cannot be undone', which implies caution but does not explain selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'). However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential cascading effects (e.g., deletion of associated tasks or time entries), permissions required, or return value. It adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two-sentence structure with zero superfluous text. Every word earns its place, front-loading the action and immediately noting irreversibility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the essential purpose and irreversibility. However, it lacks information about cascading side effects or operational constraints (e.g., whether projects must be empty to delete). Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a clear gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a minimally viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' described as 'The project UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but given complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 target resource ('a project') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete_* tools by resource type. It is unambiguous and direct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided beyond the core action. There is no mention of when to use this over alternatives (e.g., archiving or updating a project), nor any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The description implies context but gives no explicit or implicit guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Delete' without disclosing permanence, cascading effects on scheduled invoices, or any authorization requirements. For a destructive operation, this is significantly underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the core purpose is clear, but the lack of behavioral context (irreversibility, impact on related invoices) and absence of any output schema make it minimally complete but not richer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with id described as 'The recurring invoice UUID', so the description adds no parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the only parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a recurring invoice template' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('recurring invoice template'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings such as delete_invoice (regular invoices) and pause_recurring_invoice (temporary suspension).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The tool's name and description imply it is for deleting recurring invoice templates, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over pausing or deleting issued invoices, or on prerequisites like the template not being in use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action 'cannot be undone,' which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects on subtasks, comments, or permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the action and the key warning. It is concise with no wasted words, making it highly readable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential behavior (delete, irreversible). However, it lacks details on return value, cascading effects on related data, and how it differs from archive_task. The low complexity partially compensates for these omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with the id parameter described as 'The task UUID.' The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a task' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_task by implying permanent removal. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use delete_task versus reversible alternatives like archive_task. It only notes irreversibility, but does not explicitly state that this is the permanent delete option or advise using archive for reversible deletes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what 'detailed information' includes, whether any authorization is needed, or any error/edge-case behavior. It only restates the tool's function without adding behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded and everything present serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, lacking annotations, output schema, or any behavioral detail, it leaves gaps about return format and usage context. It meets the 'minimum viable' bar but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id' (described as 'The supplier UUID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter context, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('supplier'), with 'detailed information' indicating the depth of retrieval. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_suppliers (which lists multiple) and update/delete supplier operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single supplier by ID but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like list_suppliers or get_received_invoice. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing return format, scope (e.g., current user), or any side effects. While 'get' implies read-only, this is implicit, not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the exact purpose without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks crucial context such as the return type (integer) and the scope of 'unread' (e.g., user-scoped, all notifications). No output schema exists, so this information would need to be in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('count of unread notifications'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_notifications by explicitly focusing on the count rather than the full list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where a count is preferred over listing notifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get whiteboard details including content' and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, return format, or error behavior. For a retrieval tool, this is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. 'Get whiteboard details including content' is efficient, has no filler, and communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is acceptable but minimal. It mentions 'including content' but does not clarify what other details are returned or how it handles missing whiteboards. Adequate for a simple get, but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of parameters (id as 'The whiteboard UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameter, relying entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (whiteboard details) and adds scope with 'including content'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_whiteboards, update_whiteboard, and delete_whiteboard, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details of a specific whiteboard, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_whiteboards, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and parameter, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It states 'List all contacts' but the schema includes pagination params (per_page default 50), suggesting results are paginated, which creates potential ambiguity about whether 'all' means one page or all pages. The description does not mention return format, potential size, or any side effects, offering minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action 'List' and clearly specifies the resource, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list tool with complete parameter documentation and clear purpose, making the description minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return structure or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a fully complete contextual picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (page and per_page), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'contacts' and scope 'in the organization'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contact (single contact) and create_contact (creation), so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when all contacts are needed, but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_contact or search tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that events are listed but does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, timezone handling, or behavior when start/end are omitted. The read-only nature is only inferred from the word 'list', not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant word. It states the action and scope efficiently, earning its place without any padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters, the description plus schema covers the core function. However, the absence of an output schema and any details about return structure, pagination, or default behavior when arguments are omitted leaves some ambiguity, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and format (YYYY-MM-DD), so the description adds little beyond the 'date range' framing. It does not clarify whether the range is inclusive/exclusive or whether both parameters are required, which the schema also leaves open (required is 0).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'calendar events' and a scoping constraint 'within a date range'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_event', which likely retrieves a single event by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'within a date range' implies the tool is for fetching multiple events over a period, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_event. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making the guidance merely implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List all members' implies a read-only operation and indicates that the result is a complete list (not paginated). However, it does not disclose return format, permission requirements, or any potential filtering behavior, which are useful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and resource clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks detail about return values (e.g., member fields) and does not clarify how this differs from other member-listing tools, leaving the agent somewhat under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'The project UUID', and the description reinforces that it operates on a project. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the resource type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all members of a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_members (which likely lists organization-wide members) and add_project_member/remove_project_member (which modify membership).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_members or get_project. The intended scope (e.g., project context) is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other member-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all whiteboards' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like 'does not modify data' or any potential side effects. It provides minimal behavior information, just the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'List all whiteboards.' It is front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary words. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized and perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (no parameters, no explicit output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any potential limitations (e.g., pagination), but for a simple 'list all' operation, such details are likely unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema covers 100% of them (there are none). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it correctly omits any parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all whiteboards' uses a specific verb 'list' with the resource 'whiteboards' and explicitly says 'all', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_whiteboard (which fetches a single whiteboard) and create/update/delete whiteboards, as well as other list_* tools, by specifically targeting whiteboards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools such as get_whiteboard or whiteboard-specific operations. The only context is the action itself, so the agent receives no direction on choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing any side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior when the task is not archived. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core meaning. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about expected results, error conditions, or prerequisites. It does not explain what happens after a successful restore or whether the task must currently be archived, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (id as 'The task UUID'), and the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides sufficient semantic coverage for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Restore an archived task.' It clearly identifies the action (restore) and the target (archived task), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_task and delete_task. This is a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'Restore an archived task,' which indicates it is used to un-archive a task. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects of resuming, such as impact on billing schedule, idempotency, or requirements like the invoice being currently paused. This is a mutation with no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the action. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks detail on behavioral nuances such as what happens when the invoice is resumed or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no annotations, some additional context on side effects or state change would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as the recurring invoice UUID. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action clearly: 'Resume a paused recurring invoice.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'paused' qualifier distinguishes it from other recurring invoice operations like pause, create, or generate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by stating the action, but it does not explicitly provide usage context or contrast with alternatives such as pause_recurring_invoice or generate_recurring_invoice_now. The intent is clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Revoke/delete' clearly indicates a destructive action, but it does not disclose whether the action is permanent, what effects it has on existing users of the link, or any authorization requirements. The description adds basic action semantics but lacks deeper context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining consequences. It omits details such as reversibility, what happens to recipients of the link, or error behavior for invalid share IDs. While the low parameter count makes the tool simple, the lack of behavioral context leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully covers the single parameter 'share_id' with description 'The share link UUID', so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revoke/delete a share link' clearly states the action (revoke/delete) and the resource (share link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_share_link and list_share_links. The verb is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Only the action is stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a quote is sent via email, but does not mention whether this marks the quote as sent, requires a client email address, has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is fairly simple, and the schema covers parameter details, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about post-send behavior (e.g., status change, confirmation). It lacks information about prerequisites or expected outcomes, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('a quote') and the medium ('via email'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_invoice_email by specifying the document type being sent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to email a quote to a client, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it compared to related tools like convert_quote_to_invoice or send_invoice_email. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose important behavior such as whether only one timer can run at a time, whether starting a new timer stops an existing one, or what the response contains. This is a notable gap for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and context, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out behavioral nuances such as timer conflict handling and whether the 'description' parameter updates the running timer. It is not as complete as it could be for a tool with no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how 'project_id', 'task_id', or 'description' affect timer execution beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb ('Start') and resource ('a running timer'), and situates it within the context of time tracking. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like 'stop_timer' and 'get_running_timer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (starting a timer for time tracking) but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like 'create_time_entry' or 'stop_timer', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior on nonexistent tasks. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. There is zero wasted wording and it is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or any effects beyond toggling. In the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness, though the low complexity keeps it adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described as 'The task UUID', so the schema fully documents the parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle a task's completion status' clearly states the specific verb (toggle) and resource (task completion status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_task or assign_task. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to flip a task's done/completion status, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like update_task. There is no mention of exclusions or context, but the usage is reasonably inferable from the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Create a new draft quote/proposal.' It does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether it sends emails, requires client validation, calculates totals, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide additional context about return value, side effects, and behavior. It only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent with insufficient information for a reliable invocation, especially for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including client_id, line_items, valid_until, and notes. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond 'for a client' which maps to client_id. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new draft quote/proposal') with a specific target ('for a client'). It distinguishes itself from sibling quote tools like update_quote, convert_quote_to_invoice, and delete_quote by emphasizing 'new draft'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (when creating a new draft quote), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is acceptable but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'This cannot be undone.' This warns of irreversibility. However, it lacks other context such as side effects, permissions required, or whether a running timer can be deleted. The single warning is useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a critical warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the action and irreversibility. Lacking is any note about constraints (e.g., deleting a running timer) but the simplicity of the tool lowers the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'id' described as 'The time entry UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a time entry.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'time entry' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by the direct action, even though it doesn't explicitly compare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites, or alternatives like update_time_entry or stop_timer. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral details. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not clarify whether the tree includes empty folders, files, permissions, depth limits, or other side effects. It only states the output concept without behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex setup.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the exact resource ('full folder hierarchy tree'). It could potentially mention that it returns only folders and not files, but the name and phrasing already make this fairly clear. Given the low complexity, the description is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required. It correctly avoids inventing needless parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('full folder hierarchy tree'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_folders' by specifying a hierarchy structure, and from 'get_page_tree' by targeting folders. The intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_folders' or 'get_page_tree'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between related folder/list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states that it searches across entities. It does not mention result format, grouping, pagination, limits, or matching semantics (e.g., partial vs exact match). This is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core functionality and the covered entity types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., a unified list, grouped by entity type), any search limitations, or how the query is interpreted. The tool is simple in parameters but behaviorally non-trivial, and the description leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single 'query' parameter with the description 'Search query', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning, such as query syntax, wildcards, or expected length. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search across all entities' with a specific list of entity types. This verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from the many entity-specific listers among sibling tools. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'across all entities' conveys a clear context: use this tool when needing to find something without knowing which entity type it belongs to, as opposed to using a specific tool like list_clients or list_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the higher bar of explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are grouped by area and include status and member info, which is useful. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, filtering, or whether archived projects are included, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second adds a concise summary of the return structure. Every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description effectively communicates the high-level return content ('grouped by area with status and member info'). However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally clarify pagination behavior (e.g., that multiple pages exist), which is only implied by the schema parameters. This minor gap prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters (page and per_page), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all projects in the organization.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and get_project_board (board view), and adds unique details by stating projects are 'grouped by area with status and member info.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project or list_project_members. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context for choosing this tool over others, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., default sort order, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults). It is minimally sufficient but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences communicate the action and key filters without any fluff. Every word adds value, and it is well-suited for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description plus schema covers the essential facts: what it lists, filter capabilities, and pagination parameters. The lack of an output schema is not critical here, as returning a list of quotes is obvious from the name, but it does not describe the response structure explicitly. Overall, it is adequate with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'status or client' which simply echoes the schema's status and client_id parameters, adding no new semantic detail beyond what is already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'quotes/proposals', clearly distinguishing it from single-quote retrieval (e.g., get_quote) and other list tools. It also states the primary filtering dimensions, further clarifying its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or list_invoices. The description implies usage for listing quotes but does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral outcome ('stops auto-generation'), which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility (via resume_recurring_invoice), any permissions required, or effects on existing generated invoices, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no wasted words and communicates the primary purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of this tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states the action and its consequence. However, it could benefit from a note about reversibility or the fact that it only affects future auto-generation, though these are implied by sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'The recurring invoice UUID'. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'pause' and identifies the resource as 'recurring invoice', with the parenthetical 'stops auto-generation' clarifying the exact effect. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resume_recurring_invoice and generate_recurring_invoice_now.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like resume_recurring_invoice or delete_recurring_invoice. The intended use is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the invoice is built from tracked time entries and scoped to a project, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether time entries become marked as invoiced), the invoice status, or required permissions, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It communicates the core action, source, and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose but leaves out side effects and potentially helpful exclusions (e.g., how invoiced time entries are handled). The schema fills parameter details, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent needing decision-grade context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, including date ranges and UUIDs, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds the high-level 'time entries' concept but does not elaborate on relationships or formatting, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('invoice'), and a distinctive source ('tracked time entries'), making it easy to understand exactly what the tool does. It also differentiates from the sibling create_invoice by specifying that entries are derived from time tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from tracked time entries for a project' provides a clear contextual clue for when to use the tool, implying a time-billing scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as contrasting with create_invoice for manual invoices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, return values, permissions, or validation behavior. For a create operation, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with a fully described schema, this is minimally viable. It lacks guidance on usage context relative to similar tools and does not describe output, but this is acceptable given the straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Log' with the resource 'time entry' and mentions start and end time, clearly distinguishing it from timer-management tools like start_timer and stop_timer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'completed' implies this is for logging finished work as opposed to tracking in-progress timers, providing clear context. However, there is no explicit reference to alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the deletion 'cannot be undone,' which is critical. However, it does not disclose other potential traits such as whether the invoice must be in draft status, cascading deletes of line items, or permission requirements, so coverage is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place; there is no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description captures the core action and irreversibility. However, it lacks context about constraints (e.g., only draft invoices) or side effects (e.g., whether line items are also deleted), leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke the tool. Given no annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'id' described as 'The invoice UUID.' The description adds no additional semantic value for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the meaning adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('draft invoice'), with the qualifier 'draft' distinguishing this deletion tool from other invoice operations like update_invoice or delete_invoice_line_item. This fully specifies what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for draft invoices, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for non-draft invoices (e.g., create_cancellation, update_invoice_status). No exclusions are given beyond the 'draft' scope, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the delete action without disclosing consequences like irreversibility, impact on invoice totals, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that effectively communicates the action without any waste. It fronts the verb and target clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action, but it omits details about side effects (e.g., whether the invoice is recalculated) and response behavior. Since there's no output schema, more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (item_id and invoice_id) with clear meanings, so the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('a line item') with an invoice context, clearly distinguishing it from related tools like delete_invoice or update_invoice_line_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes its use case obvious—when a specific line item on an invoice needs to be removed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Get time tracking statistics' indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what specific statistics are returned, whether any filtering applies, or if special permissions are required. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or filler. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With just one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for basic understanding. However, it omits details about the nature of the statistics (e.g., total hours, billable hours), which would be valuable given the absence of an output schema. It is not incomplete enough to cause misuse, but it leaves room for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'id' described as 'The project UUID'. The description reiterates the project focus but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'time tracking statistics for a specific project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_time_stats (global stats) and list_time_entries (raw entries). It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user needs time statistics for one project, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_time_stats for global statistics or list_time_entries for detailed logs. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation and indicates team scope, but lacks details on output format, aggregation, or any prerequisites or caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose without redundancy or extra words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple parameterless stats tool, but the lack of an output schema and minimal behavioral details leave it at a minimally viable level. It indicates the return content (quota and usage statistics) but not the structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter details. Baseline 4 applies per the rubric for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'vacation quota and usage statistics' for 'the team', making it distinct from related tools like get_time_stats and list_absences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_time_stats or list_absences. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List invoices' and filter options, without disclosing return format, pagination behavior, or explicitly confirming it is read-only beyond the name. Minimal behavioral context for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Perfectly concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema is complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the return structure or any side effects. It is adequate for basic use but leaves the agent without information about response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filters mirrors the schema's status, client_id, and type parameters, adding no new meaning. It neither contradicts nor enhances the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists invoices, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions filters (status, client, type) and distinguishes from siblings like get_invoice (single invoice) and create_invoice (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by naming the filters but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_invoice for a single invoice). It gives a clear sense of when to use the list but lacks exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'list' and the resource, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or that it is a read-only operation. There is no mention of side effects, but for a list tool the absence of explicit safety declaration is still a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately starts with the verb and clearly names the resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, making it efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only optional filters, and the schema covers the params. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., an array of invoices). For a list operation, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (page, status, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable under the baseline for high coverage. The tool description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list'), the specific resource ('received invoices'), and adds the qualifier 'from suppliers' which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_invoices'. The German term 'Eingangsrechnungen' reinforces the exact scope. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'received invoices from suppliers', making it obvious when to use this tool versus a generic invoice listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when not to use' bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and does not mention side effects, whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full, required permissions, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It adequately conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, but lacks behavioral details such as whether fields are optional, any constraints, or what the return value is. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (id, name, color) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'project area/group', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_area and delete_area. Including 'area/group' clarifies terminology and leaves no ambiguity about what is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this tool to modify an existing project area. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'Update' implies it is for changing existing areas, while create/delete are separate tools. This provides clear guidance without needing to name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses 'This cannot be undone,' which is a critical irreversible-behavior trait. However, it does not elaborate on other effects such as cascading deletion or permission requirements, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: 'Delete a contact. This cannot be undone.' Two short sentences, front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and its irreversibility. It does not mention side effects on related data, but this is not essential for a basic contact deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'id' as 'The contact UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it achieves the baseline but provides no enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a contact' with a clear verb and target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_contact and list_contacts. The added note about irreversibility reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using update_contact for edits or any context/exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether all event fields are included. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate. It could be improved by specifying what 'detailed information' includes, but the current phrasing is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as 'The event UUID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies fully on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a single calendar event. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a calendar event' distinguish it from siblings like list_events, create_event, and update_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this when you have an event ID and need details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of list_events or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (line items, payments, totals), but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe behavior on missing IDs. While 'Get' implies read-only, more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key output components without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and what the returned data includes. It could additionally mention that it retrieves a single invoice, but this is strongly implied by the 'id' parameter and the use of 'an invoice'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (id as 'The invoice UUID'), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The description does mention the output types, which indirectly clarifies the parameter's purpose, but this is not parameter-specific detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and identifies the resource ('an invoice') with a clear scope ('including line items, payments, and totals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_invoices by focusing on a single invoice's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving a single invoice's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_invoices) or mention any exclusions. The single 'id' parameter hints at targeted lookup, but no explicit guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get the full page tree hierarchy') without mentioning whether it is read-only, what the return structure looks like, or any side effects. For a potential read operation, the description should at least imply non-mutating behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource and the fact that it returns the full hierarchy, which is the core information needed. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format or that it is a read-only operation, but this is not a major gap for a zero-parameter getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the full page tree hierarchy' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (page tree hierarchy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pages (flat list) or get_page (single page) by explicitly stating it returns the full hierarchical tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a complete page tree is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since it is a simple getter, the implied usage is sufficient, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies that line items and totals are included, but it does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what is returned beyond the mention. This is adequate but not rich in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 9 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No redundant or irrelevant information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose and key output contents ('line items and totals'). It is mostly complete for a read operation, though it could explicitly mention that it returns the full quote object or handle error cases, which are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'The quote UUID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('quote'), and adds specific scope ('detailed information including line items and totals'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_quotes that likely provide a summary list. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching details of a specific quote, requiring an ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison with list_quotes or other quote-related tools is given, leaving the usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the action but adds no context about scope (e.g., current user), side effects, reversibility, or how 'all' is determined. The simple nature of the operation partially compensates, but more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly and efficiently stating the tool's purpose without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no expected output format, the description provides the core functionality. It could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., current user's notifications), but the simple nature of the operation makes the given description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none to describe, this is appropriate and no deduction is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark all notifications as read' clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (notifications), with 'all' specifying the scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'mark_notification_read' by indicating bulk operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling 'mark_notification_read' exists, the description does not clarify when bulk marking is appropriate or preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the basic action ('stop a currently running timer') and does not mention side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or what happens to the time entry.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single required parameter fully described in the schema and a clear purpose statement, the description is almost complete. It loses one point because it omits any information about return values or failure behavior, which is not covered by an output schema or annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' is clearly described as 'The running time entry UUID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('currently running timer'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like start_timer, get_running_timer, and delete_time_entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'currently running timer' provides clear context: this is used to halt an active timer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default root behavior and folder scoping, but it does not mention return format, pagination, or how 'search' affects results. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with only two optional params and no output schema or annotations. The description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks details on result behavior (e.g., whether subfolders are included, if pagination applies). It's a minimum viable description with some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (search, folder_id) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little extra meaning beyond clarifying the root default, which the schema already states as 'omit for root'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List files in a folder (or root if no folder specified).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('files'), plus scope ('folder/root'), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_file, delete_file, and list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys clear usage context: it is for listing files in a specified folder or the root if omitted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward wording makes it obvious when to use this tool over other file-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and permissions. It states the return payload (all columns, tasks, assignees, tags, subtask counts, time tracked), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm 'no changes are made' or address potential authorization or empty-board behavior. The listed fields provide partial behavioral transparency without full detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys action and scope. It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it very concise while still informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the resource, the scope ('full'), and the included components. It lacks an explicit statement about being read-only, but the 'Get' verb and board context make that implicit. The absence of annotations is not critical given the simplicity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage ('The project UUID'), so the schema itself fully documents the parameter. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but none is needed given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly names the resource 'full kanban board for a project'. It further enumerates the board contents (columns, tasks, assignees, tags, subtask counts, and time tracked), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project or get_gantt_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need the complete kanban board view of a project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous. A brief note about alternative views (e.g., get_gantt_data) would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content of the response by enumerating the fields included, which provides meaningful behavioral expectation. However, it does not address error scenarios, authentication requirements, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core function and efficiently lists the included details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately outlines the returned information. It lists key content areas, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it does not cover potential error responses or field-specific structures, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter `id` as 'The task UUID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers it, the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve detailed information about a specific task. It lists the specific data categories returned (description, assignees, subtasks, tags, time tracked, child tasks), distinguishing it from task mutation tools like assign_task or delete_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving task details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is limited to what is obvious from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that all areas/groups are listed, without mentioning pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or whether archived/closed areas are included. This leaves significant behavioral details undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without any redundant words or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does. It is not fully comprehensive about return formatting or edge cases, but for a straightforward list operation, the description is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('project areas/groups'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_area, update_area, and delete_area by focusing on the listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List all' implies the primary use case: retrieving every project area/group. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, there is no competing 'list areas' alternative among siblings, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the response includes clients with their projects and mentions pagination support. However, it doesn't describe response structure (e.g., whether it's a raw array or paginated object) or any other side effects. The pagination detail is partially redundant with schema parameter descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second adds return information and pagination.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description explains returns by stating clients and associated projects. It also covers pagination. However, it doesn't detail the exact response payload shape (array vs. paginated object), which an agent might need to know for invocation, but it's sufficient for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions for page and per_page are already clear, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter information is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (all clients in the organization), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like get_client by focusing on listing all clients, and from list_contacts by specifying clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to list clients). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and the existence of get_client implies using this for bulk listing. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It adds the important nuance that providing parent_id lists subfolders, but it does not disclose recursion behavior, ordering, or response content. This is minimal but non-redundant context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool, the description captures the core purpose and the optional parameter's effect. It omits return-format details, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable and nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes parent_id as 'Parent folder UUID (omit for root)', and the description's 'subfolders' phrasing aligns with that. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema's coverage, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with the resource ('folders') and clarifies the root-versus-subfolder behavior via the parenthetical. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_folder or get_folder_tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'or subfolders of a parent folder' gives clear context on when to use the tool with parent_id versus listing root folders. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, stopping short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states only 'active' share links, implying filtering, but doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, authorization, or the meaning of 'active'. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns every character.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't describe the return format, but the tool's name and siblings make it clear it returns a list. The term 'active' could be more explicit, but overall it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and the schema already covers 100% of parameters (none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all active share links.' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('share links') with a scope ('active'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_share_link and revoke_share_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call to get all active share links. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. Sibling tools exist for creating/revoking, but the description doesn't mention them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether archived/inactive tags are included. It is adequate but lacks detail compared to tools with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'List all tags used in the organization.' It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete for a simple operation. It could optionally mention that it returns tag IDs and names, but the core purpose and scope are clear. Minor missing details like return format keep it from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully documented (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tags used in the organization'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag, update_tag, and delete_tag. It unambiguously conveys the read-only nature and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by indicating this lists all organization tags, which is the natural read operation for managing tags. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for project-specific tags, use list_project_tags'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantic effect (status change on the kanban board), which is useful. Yet it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the task's position within the column, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary verb and object ('Move a task') and adds a concise parenthetical clarification, making it highly readable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what the operation does and its effect. It could optionally mention that the column is on the same kanban board or clarify the return value, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (task UUID and target column UUID), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the column is the destination, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move a task') and the resource affected (task), with the specific outcome of changing its status on the kanban board. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_task_to_project (which moves tasks between projects) and update_task (which handles general updates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for moving a task to a different kanban column, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as move_task_to_project or toggle_task_done, though the column-specific wording provides a strong hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the draft-only editing restriction, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe error handling, permissions, or other side effects, which is a gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the action and the key constraint without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and instantly parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple update operation, 100% schema parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential constraint (drafts only). A touch more context about consequences of updating non-drafts or what happens after the update might be helpful, but the current description is adequate for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description (id, notes, due_date, invoice_date). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update an existing invoice' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the draft-only scope, which distinguishes it from other invoice-related tools like update_invoice_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'only drafts can be edited' gives clear context on when this tool is applicable and when it is not. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for non-draft invoices or status changes, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes 'if any', which tells the agent that a missing timer is a valid case (likely returning null or empty), which is key behavioral information. However, it does not describe the return format or error behavior, but for a read-only getter this is relatively complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately clear, and every word contributes value. It is front-loaded with the action and object, with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and the main edge case ('if any'). It does not explain the return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and straightforward naming, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the 'if any' phrase adds context about potential empty results, which is useful beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact action ('Get') and the precise resource ('the currently running timer'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_time_entries or start_timer. The phrase 'if any' also clarifies that the tool may return no timer, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to check for an active timer) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with similar tools like list_time_entries or start_timer. There is no clear guidance on when to prefer this over others, but the intent is inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two critical traits: the cascading deletion of child pages and the irreversibility of the operation. This is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds the irreversibility warning. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive operation without an output schema, the description fully covers the action, scope, and consequence. The agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the only parameter 'id' as 'The page UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'a page' and adds the critical scope qualifier 'and all its children,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools. It precisely states what operation is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this is the tool to use when deleting a page. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

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

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