executive-copilot

by gppsys

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
There are three overlapping follow-up/commitment domains: follow_ups, commitments, and delegations. While each has distinct semantics (follow-ups to self, commitments bidirectional promises, delegations to others), tools like get_overdue_follow_ups vs get_overdue_commitments vs get_overdue_delegations create boundary confusion, and get_my_commitments vs get_others_commitments vs get_all_commitments adds further overlap. Draft tools (draft_reply, draft_follow_up, draft_email) also have somewhat blurred boundaries despite decent descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (get_, create_, update_, complete_, search_, draft_, send_). Naming is largely predictable and consistent in snake_case. Minor deviations exist like get_follow_ups_with_person vs get_commitments_with_person vs get_delegations_to_person (inconsistent use of 'with' vs 'to'), and get_emails_from_sender vs get_organizations_emails uses varying prepositions.
Tool Count2/5
71 tools is a very large surface area for a single executive-copilot server. The scope spans email, calendar, tasks, Slack, meetings, relationships, decisions, follow-ups, commitments, delegations, briefings, and a tech dashboard. While each domain adds tools legitimately, this breadth makes the tool set unwieldy and hard for an agent to navigate efficiently. This is well beyond the 'heavy' range of 25+ tools.
Completeness3/5
The three tracking domains (follow-ups, commitments, delegations) all have create/get/search/complete and overdue variants, which is quite complete. Email, calendar, meetings, and relationships have solid coverage. However, some gaps exist: email lacks update/move/archive capabilities, calendaring lacks event creation/deletion entirely, and the tech dashboard's close_week/get_week_history pair is oddly sparse (only two tools for an entire dashboard domain). The domain is extremely broad, so it's hard to call it truly complete.
Average 3.3/5 across 71 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

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 behavioral burden. The description is just a single sentence stating the action with no mention of side effects (e.g., does it notify the assignee by email?), permission requirements, account selection behavior, or what happens if required parameters are missing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (one sentence, ~7 words), which is efficient for a 'create' operation. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and important behavioral implications. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the brevity doesn't include necessary operating context.
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 an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, this is a mutation tool with no annotations. The description fails to explain integration behavior (which Asana account is used, whether tasks appear in specific projects by default, assignee notification behavior). The complexity of Asana task creation with optional account/project/assignee fields warrants more than a single declarative sentence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 itself documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (title, account, due_date, project_id, description, assignee_email). The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create a task in Asana') with a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_commitment, create_delegation, or create_follow_up, which are similar creation tools. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from the broader sibling set, though Asana-specific context provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_commitment or create_follow_up. There's no mention of context (e.g., 'use for project tasks, not meetings or follow-ups') or exclusions. The description provides no usage context whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this only retrieves one provider's threads, pagination behavior, ordering of emails, or whether it requires prior access/auth to the account. For a read tool with zero annotations, this is sparse.
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 with no wasted words, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise - it could add value in the same space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple 2-param read operation with an output schema present, so complexity is low. However, with no annotations and no guidance on thread semantics (ordering, filtering, multithread handling), the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for agent confusion about scope and 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. Both parameters (account, thread_id) have adequate schema descriptions. The description adds no new param meaning beyond 'get all emails in a conversation thread'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all emails in a conversation thread' states a specific verb+resource (get emails in a thread). It is clear but does not distinguish from siblings like get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, or get_email_summary, though the thread-specific scope is somewhat implicit in the name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 vs alternatives like get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, search_all_emails, or get_email_summary. The context is clearly thread-based, but there are no exclusions or explicit when/when-not statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Mark as completed' implies mutation/state change, but it doesn't describe side effects: what happens to the delegation's associated follow-ups, whether completion is reversible, or what the response includes. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.
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?
A single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded and to the point. However, there is room to add value without sacrificing conciseness, such as noting the state transition that occurs.
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 state-changing mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain prerequisites (delegation must exist, must be in a delegatable state), side effects on related records, or what the output schema contains. The high schema coverage and output schema help, but a mutation tool needs richer behavioral 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% and there is only 1 parameter (delegation_id), which the schema itself describes as 'ID of the delegation to complete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark a delegation as completed.' provides a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from most siblings (create/update/search/get delegations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from complete_commitment or complete_follow_up, which share the 'complete_X' pattern. The purpose is clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 complete_commitment or complete_follow_up. Nor does it explain when a delegation should be marked completed versus left in a different state or updated. No when/why/exclusion context is provided at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 'Create an email draft' with no mention of whether this is a read/transient operation (creating a draft is non-destructive but the agent needs to know it doesn't send), whether scheduling/rate limits apply, or what happens with the 'account' selection fallback. Critical behavior — that this creates a draft and does NOT send it — is only implied by the name 'draft' and not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise — a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the brevity is a double-edged sword: while there's no fluff, important differentiating context is missing. For conciseness alone, this is well-executed.
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 crowded sibling space (draft_email, draft_reply, draft_follow_up, send_email all nearby), the description is incomplete. There is no output schema description detail, no distinction from siblings, no behavioral note that this does not send the email. For a draft-creation tool operating in a workspace with many overlapping email/delegation/commitment tools, one sentence is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to the baseline, 100% coverage earns a 3. The description doesn't compensate with format/semantic details (like whether 'to' supports multiple formats or what 'first available' means for account selection), but the schema already carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Create an email draft'), which provides basic purpose clarity. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'draft_email', 'draft_reply', 'draft_follow_up', or 'send_email' — the agent would struggle to know which draft/send tool to pick. The single sentence explains the action but not the scope or differentiation from nearly identical siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Siblings include 'draft_email', 'draft_reply', 'draft_follow_up', and 'send_email' which all overlap significantly in purpose. The description gives zero context about when to choose create_email_draft over draft_email, or when a reply/follow-up variant would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap given the crowded sibling space.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether include_completed changes pagination or performance, what happens when the email has no delegations, or the return format—despite an output schema existing. Missing behavioral context like whether it only returns active delegations by default.
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 zero filler. It's appropriately minimal for what it offers, though it could have used the space to add distinguishing guidance 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?
With an output schema present, return-value documentation is partially covered, but the description omits key operational details: default filtering behavior (completed excluded by default?), what distinguishes it from get_delegations and search_delegations, and edge-case handling for invalid emails. For a tool with many close siblings, this is under-specified for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both params (email, include_completed) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond naming the filter target ('specific person'). The 'include_completed' default behavior (false) is not clarified in the description—whether the default returns only open delegations would need to be inferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get delegations assigned to a specific person,' which identifies the verb (get), resource (delegations), and filter (assigned to a specific person). However, it doesn't differentiate from close siblings like get_delegations, search_delegations, or get_delegations_to_person vs get_waiting_summary—the scope distinction is minimal and doesn't articulate whether this overlaps with get_delegations for a person filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 similar delegation tools like get_delegations, search_delegations, get_overdue_delegations, or get_waiting_summary. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection among many similar delegation-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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is terse and doesn't disclose what counts as 'follow-ups' (what kind, what statuses), whether the tool handles multi-email aliases, or whether it only returns incomplete follow-ups by default. With an output schema present, some return information may be structurally available, but behavioral traits are not disclosed beyond the minimal filter behavior implied by the include_completed param.
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 sentence, maximally concise with zero waste. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise—it's efficient but lacks the useful context that would make it valuable, though no fluff exists to penalize heavily.
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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, which reduces the burden on the description. However, the purpose overlaps heavily with siblings like get_follow_ups, get_overdue_follow_ups, get_commitments_with_person, and search_follow_ups, and the description does nothing to clarify what makes this tool distinct. It doesn't explain the default filtering behavior (include_completed defaults to false, which is arguably implied) or how results differ from related tools. Given the sibling complexity but moderate schema/annotations coverage, the description is notably incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (person_email and include_completed with its default). The description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema—it just restates 'specific person' which maps to person_email. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage is appropriate, but the description provides no supplementary semantic value like explaining what happens if person_email is unknown or whether include_completed applies to follow-ups with any status.
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 a resource ('follow-ups') with a scope qualifier ('related to a specific person'), which clearly states the core action and target. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_commitments_with_person, get_delegations_to_person, or search_follow_ups, all of which could plausibly be confused. It's clear but lacks differentiation from the many 'with_person' / 'to_person' siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many closely related siblings (get_follow_ups, get_overdue_follow_ups, search_follow_ups, get_commitments_with_person), the description fails entirely to clarify selection criteria. The agent would have no way to know whether this should be chosen over get_follow_ups or get_overdue_follow_ups, or what differentiates it from get_commitments_with_person.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. The description doesn't state that this is a read-only operation (which the name implies but doesn't guarantee), whether it returns emails across multiple accounts/folders, how 'recent' is defined, or what happens with limits. It also doesn't disclose whether the organization parameter is an exact match or fuzzy match.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for the tool's simplicity. It states the purpose directly without filler 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?
Despite having an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is thin for a tool with so many email-related siblings. It doesn't clarify the relationship between 'organization' and the emails (are they labeled by organization? matched via contact links?), doesn't define 'recent', and doesn't mention any caveats about coverage (e.g., does it only search certain folders or all inboxes). For a tool operating alongside many ambiguous email tools, this needs more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — both 'limit' and 'organization' have descriptions in the schema. The organization description includes examples ('Primary', 'Secondary') and the limit has a default of 20. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter context ('recent' implies a time window). Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't substantially add beyond schema but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get recent emails related to a specific organization' has a clear verb+resource+qualifier ('get', 'emails', 'specific organization'). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from many sibling tools like 'get_all_unread_emails', 'get_inbox', 'search_all_emails', or 'get_emails_from_sender' — the distinction between 'related to an organization' vs. other email retrieval tools is not explicitly clarified beyond the basic 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 60+ sibling tools including many email-related ones (get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, get_emails_from_sender, search_all_emails), there is no when/when-not guidance. The description doesn't clarify whether this is for filtering the inbox by organization entity, or a broader search, or when this would be preferred over the email search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the search is scoped to 'messages visible to the authenticated app,' which adds some context about permission boundaries. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether results include message metadata, thread context, or timestamps, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or what happens when the search returns no results. For a read-only search tool, it's under-specified relative to what an agent needs to know.
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 that states the purpose without padding. It doesn't waste words. It could arguably be scored higher if it were more informative, but as pure conciseness, it's economically structured. One could say it's under-specified rather than verbose, which actually means the sentence itself is well-formed but carries insufficient 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 has an output schema, which relieves the description of explaining return values, and schema coverage is 100%, so params are technically documented. However, given this is a complex search operation with 4 parameters and a large sibling set, the description should address search syntax expectations, visibility boundaries, and how results are ordered/ranked. With no annotations and a very terse description, the description doesn't adequately prepare an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds essentially nothing about parameters—it doesn't explain query syntax, what 'maximum messages to return' means in practice, or what account_id does beyond the schema's own text. The schema already covers parameter meaning adequately, so the description not adding anything is acceptable, though it could note that 'query' supports Slack's native search syntax (e.g., from:, in:).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Search Slack messages visible to the authenticated app.' This clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (Slack messages), with the scoping qualifier 'visible to the authenticated app.' However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_commitments, search_delegations, or other search_* tools, though those operate on different resource types so the differentiation is largely implicit. The title is null which reduces clarity since the description is the only identity signal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what kinds of queries work, whether it interacts with list_slack_channels or get_slack_channel_history, or any limits on visibility (e.g., 'visible to the authenticated app' suggests scope but doesn't explain what that means in practice). While the sibling tools are mostly on different resources, the description doesn't help the agent understand when search vs. browsing channel history 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that sending is a side-effecting action, whether it requires authentication/permissions, whether it sends to a default recipient automatically, or that it could dispatch an email to a real user. A sending tool with zero annotation coverage should clearly disclose this mutation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient - two short paragraphs, no filler. However, the second paragraph is largely redundant with the first, restating the sending concept. It earns points for brevity but the repetition is a minor waste.
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 side-effecting send operation with no annotations and a rich set of sibling briefing/email tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify where the briefing content comes from, whether it's the same as get_morning_briefing, what the email format looks like, or how it interacts with the many related scheduling/email tools. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and selection logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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%, so both parameters (account, to_email) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'account to send from' and 'recipient email' context, but it doesn't explain how the briefing content is selected, what happens if to_email is null, or the relationship between the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Send the morning briefing as an email digest' with a clear verb (send) and resource (briefing email). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like send_email, create_email_draft, or get_morning_briefing - the agent may confuse sending the briefing with generating/retrieving it. The second paragraph adds minor elaboration but doesn't clarify how this differs from send_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 says it's 'useful for receiving your daily summary in your inbox' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Among siblings like get_morning_briefing, get_daily_briefing, and send_email, there's no clarification on when to send vs. retrieve the briefing, or how this differs from the send_email tool for general email sending.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the update is partial (only provided fields change) or full-replacement, whether status transitions are validated, or what the response contains. The schema shows nullable fields with defaults of null, suggesting partial updates, but the description never clarifies this behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. However, it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—it's so short it provides almost no information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool (no annotations) with 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify partial-update semantics, which parameters are optional, whether nullable fields mean 'unset' behavior, or how this relates to complete_delegation/create_delegation. Given the complexity of partial updates, more explanation is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate. The schema already documents each updatable field's meaning and the status/priority enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a delegation' uses a clear verb+resource structure, but it's a tautology of the tool name. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated, and while there are sibling tools like create_delegation and complete_delegation that are clearly distinct, the update description adds no differentiation beyond saying it updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 siblings. It doesn't mention that create_delegation is for new delegations, complete_delegation for finishing, or how update differs from those. No context, prerequisites, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't say whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires an event that exists, what happens with events that have no decisions, or what the return format is. An output schema exists which helps, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.
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 filler. It front-loads the core action. There's zero waste, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without much added length.
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 (1 param) and has an output schema, so the completeness bar is lower. The description adequately conveys the purpose but lacks usage context (when to use vs. related siblings like get_meeting_outcome), and without annotations the read-only nature isn't explicitly confirmed. Adequate for a simple read tool but not exceptional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 a single parameter (event_id), and the description references 'a specific meeting' which maps to the event_id parameter. The schema already documents event_id as 'Calendar event ID,' so the description adds minimal semantic value but doesn't conflict. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the only parameter fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb and resource clearly: 'Get all decisions from a specific meeting.' It identifies the specific resource (meeting decisions) with 'a specific meeting' scoping. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_recent_decisions, get_meeting_outcome, or get_meeting_context, which could overlap ambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to prefer get_recent_decisions, get_meeting_outcome, record_meeting_outcome, or get_meeting_context. The description provides no exclusion criteria or alternative tool 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this aggregates across all meeting types, how decisions are ordered (recency?), whether results are deduplicated, or what the output structure looks like. While the output schema exists, the behavioral semantics of 'all meetings' and 'recent' remain under-specified.
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 one short sentence, the description is extremely concise with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose immediately. However, it may be slightly under-specified given the complexity of sibling differentiation, but as a pure conciseness measurement this is solid.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, which covers return values, and 100% parameter schema coverage. However, given the large sibling set with overlapping decision/follow-up tools, more guidance on scope and differentiation would improve completeness. The core retrieval function is adequately described for a simple list tool with good schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 parameters (limit with max results, days_back with lookback period) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides but also doesn't need to, since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Get recent decisions from all meetings" clearly states the action (get) and resource (recent decisions from meetings). It's clear but not directly differentiated from siblings like get_meeting_decisions or search_decisions. The fact that 'all meetings' is explicitly stated provides some scoping but doesn't clarify the distinction vs other decision-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include get_meeting_decisions and search_decisions, so there's ambiguity about how get_recent_decisions differs and when each should be preferred. The description provides no context on use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether results are paginated, sorted, filtered by status, or whether it only returns active delegations. No note about default limit behavior or result ordering.
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?
A single concise sentence that states purpose efficiently with zero filler. Brief and directly to the point, though it could use a second sentence for usage context.
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 only a search term and limit, this is a simple filtered-list tool. An output schema exists, so return format doesn't need explaining. However, given the large set of sibling delegation/search tools, the description could better clarify scope (e.g., does it search all delegations or just those assigned to the user?).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 (limit='Maximum results', query='Search term'), so the schema documents both. The description adds little beyond confirming query searches title/description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search delegations by title or description' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (delegations), and specifies the fields searched. It distinguishes from related get_delegations variants by focusing on title/description text search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_delegations_to_person.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 alternative delegation-fetching tools like get_delegations, get_delegations_to_person, or get_overdue_delegations. The agent must infer that text search is for finding delegations by keyword rather than by status, person, or listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. The description only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., irreversible state change, whether other tools reflect the completion, any permissions needed). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with zero waste. It states the purpose clearly and efficiently. This is appropriately concise for a simple mutation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no additional behavioral detail, the description is thin. While the output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description doesn't address irreversibility, error conditions, or the 'account' parameter's role. Given its simplicity, more behavioral context 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 coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (account and task_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The task_id is described as a GID and account as an identifier, which is adequate.
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 "Mark an Asana task complete" uses a specific verb (mark complete) with a specific resource (Asana task), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_asana_task and get_my_tasks. It's concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar completion tools like complete_commitment or complete_delegation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 like complete_commitment or complete_follow_up. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the task must exist, whether the user must own it) or when this is the appropriate tool among many completion-type siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a state change (completing something) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens to associated records (e.g., follow-ups or delegations tied to the commitment), or whether idempotency applies when completing an already-completed commitment.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action clearly. No wasted words. Given the tool's simplicity, this brevity is appropriate.
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 (1 param, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a state-changing mutation with no annotations, it would benefit from at least noting irreversibility or success criteria. It's adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 single parameter commitment_id has a clear description ('ID of the commitment to complete'). With full coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.
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+resource ('Mark a commitment as completed') that clearly identifies the action and target resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_commitment and search_commitments, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 vs alternatives. The tool is a mutation on commitments but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., commitment must not be already completed), nor is there any guidance contrasting with related mutating tools like complete_follow_up or complete_delegation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 and an output schema present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two-direction scope but doesn't reveal pagination behavior, ordering, default behavior specifics, performance implications of no filters, or what happens when many commitments exist. The limit parameter defaults to 50 implying truncation, but this isn't stated as a limitation explicitly.
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 efficient - two short bullet-style points plus a brief scope statement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds the direction detail concisely. No wasted words, though it could arguably be more informative without much length penalty.
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 filtered list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this is reasonably complete. The two-direction behavior is the key non-obvious trait and it's captured. However, with 70+ sibling tools including many commitment/delegation variants, a bit more guidance on which sibling covers which filtering scenario would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit and include_completed) are fully documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mostly echoing the direction concept rather than explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 commitments 'in both directions' and explicitly lists both types (i_promised and they_promised). While it doesn't name a differentiating alternative among siblings, the two-direction scope distinguishes it from get_my_commitments and get_others_commitments, which likely fetch single-direction results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Among the sibling tools, get_my_commitments and get_others_commitments are clear single-direction alternatives, but the description never points the agent to them or explains when all-direction retrieval is preferable over filtered variants like get_overdue_commitments or get_commitments_with_person.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 doesn't mention whether results are sorted, limited in count, whether it defaults to only outstanding commitments, what happens if the person has no commitments, or any pagination/return-format details despite the include_completed parameter implying default behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly with zero filler. Could be slightly improved by adding behavioral notes but is appropriately concise for the information conveyed.
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?
Output schema exists which lessens the need to describe return values. However, the tool has 2 parameters with an output schema but no annotations, and the description doesn't explain the meaning of 'involving' (is the person the creator, assignee, or either?). For a tool with a boolean include_completed flag, more context about the default filtering behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters (email, include_completed) documented with clear descriptions. The description adds context that include_completed defaults to false (implied by schema), and the email parameter maps to 'a specific person', but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema since the schema descriptions already convey parameter semantics fully.
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 commitments involving a specific person' uses a specific verb (Get) plus resource (commitments) plus scope qualifier (specific person). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_my_commitments, get_all_commitments, and get_overdue_commitments, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 on when to use this vs alternatives such as get_delegations_to_person, get_follow_ups_with_person, or get_commitments search variants. There's no mention of when this tool is preferred over get_all_commitments with filtering, nor any exclusions or prerequisites 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, whether events can be from any calendar, what happens if no event matches the ID, or what fields of detail are returned. For a retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is thin.
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?
A single efficient sentence with zero waste. It gets to the point quickly. The structure is fine but could arguably include slightly more detail 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?
This is a relatively simple lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and a clear purpose. The description is minimal but arguably sufficient for a basic retrieval operation where the output schema documents return values. However, it could note sibling differentiation given the crowded calendar-tool space.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 3 parameters documented in the schema (account, event_id, calendar_id with default). The description itself doesn't add param info, but baseline 3 applies with full coverage, and the calendar_id default-to-primary behavior is useful context already in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get detailed information about a specific calendar event' with a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_today_events, get_upcoming_events, and get_week_events, all of which are event-related tools. The purpose is clear but generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 siblings like get_today_events or get_week_events. The name suggests it's for a single specific event, but the description doesn't clarify that this is for retrieving details on one event by ID rather than listing events by date range.
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 burden. It's a read-only operation ('get') which is clear, but it doesn't disclose return format, result ordering, what 'recent' means, or whether results are scoped to the current user or all meetings. The days_back and limit behavior is approximated via parameter names but not described in prose. The description is minimally transparent but adds little beyond what the name implies.
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 waste. It's efficient but arguably under-specified for a tool with many sibling getters. Still, brevity is a strength here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (which the description needn't explain) and 2 fully documented parameters at 100% coverage. However, among a huge set of meeting/decision/outcome siblings, the lack of differentiation and behavioral detail (ordering, scope, recency semantics) makes the description only minimally complete for the 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit with default 20, days_back with default 30). The description adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could clarify units or interaction between the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists 'recently recorded meeting outcomes' with a specific verb+resource. It's clear about what it retrieves, though it doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_meeting_outcome, get_meeting_decisions, or get_meeting_context. Since there are many meeting-related getters among siblings, this description alone doesn't clarify which specific outcome type is returned or how it differs from get_meeting_outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 over get_meeting_outcome, get_meeting_decisions, or get_recent_decisions. Given the large set of meeting/outcome/decision getters among siblings, explicit differentiation would be valuable but is entirely absent. The description offers no use-case context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only messages visible to the bot are returned (a real behavioral constraint), but doesn't disclose whether it's a read-only operation explicitly, date-range scoping, message count limits, or that it returns a paginated cursor-based result to subsequent calls.
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?
A single clear sentence that states the purpose efficiently. Zero waste. It could arguably be even more informative, but for a concise description it's appropriately brief 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?
There is an output schema, so return format need not be explained. The tool has 4 params all covered by schema and a pagination cursor, yet the description doesn't mention pagination behavior or how the cursor ties to results. For a read tool with an output schema and full param coverage, this is adequate but could note the pagination mechanism more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 4 parameters (limit, cursor, account_id, channel_id) have schema-level descriptions. The description adds the 'recent' scoping and bot-visibility constraint that gives context for channel_id, but adds nothing beyond the schema for limit/cursor/account_id semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 says 'Get recent Slack messages for a channel visible to the bot' — specific verb (Get), resource (Slack messages), and scope (recent, for a channel visible to the bot). It's distinct from sibling tools like search_slack_messages and list_slack_channels, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 notes messages are 'visible to the bot,' implying access constraints, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_slack_messages or list_slack_channels. There's no mention of pagination usage, rate limits, or channel prerequirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 doesn't clarify whether results are sorted, whether this includes past events if hours is negative, how multiple accounts' results are combined, or whether it's a read-only operation (which the name implies but is unverified). Minimal behavioral information beyond the raw statement.
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?
A single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose. Could be considered slightly under-specified rather than concise, but given the minimal surface area (one optional parameter, output schema present), the length is appropriate and 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?
The tool has an output schema and a single optional parameter with 100% coverage, which reduces the need for extensive description. However, given the presence of close siblings (get_today_events, get_week_events) in the same domain, some clarifying note on default scope (e.g., 24h look-ahead) and aggregation behavior would make it complete. Adequate but with room to distinguish from siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'hours' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Hours to look ahead (default: 24)'). The description itself doesn't reference the parameter, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic detail beyond schema is provided, but none is strictly needed for a single fully-documented parameter.
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 upcoming calendar events from all accounts' uses a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (upcoming calendar events) and a notable scope qualifier ('from all accounts'). It's clear in intent, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the related siblings like get_today_events or get_week_events, which are close variations sharing the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 vs. alternatives like get_today_events, get_week_events, or get_my_tasks. It doesn't mention that it aggregates across accounts or when that multi-account scope would be preferred, nor does it note any exclusions. Context is implied by the name and description but no explicit decision 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 gives no info about return format, sorting, pagination, or whether the search is case-insensitive or partial-match. A search tool with zero annotations should disclose more about behavior beyond the bare fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before 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 short sentence, zero waste, appropriately minimal for a simple search tool. 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?
A search tool with an output schema and 2 well-documented params is simple, but given no annotations and no guidance on result ordering, limit semantics, or search behavior, the description is thin. It satisfies the bare minimum but leaves the agent guessing about result characteristics and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by title or description' adds a small semantic detail about what the query matches, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search follow-ups by title or description' has a clear verb (search) and resource (follow-ups), specifying the search fields (title or description). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like search_commitments or search_delegations, but the resource name differentiates it adequately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_commitments, search_delegations, or get_follow_ups. The sibling set includes get_follow_ups and get_overdue_follow_ups, but the description does not clarify when a search is preferred over a list retrieval, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says it checks status, which implies a read/safe operation, but doesn't disclose whether it makes network calls, caches results, what error behavior it has (e.g., does it throw or return an error status?), or what the output structure looks like. It's a simple tool but leaves 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 concise sentence with zero waste - it's appropriately minimal for a simple tool. It could slightly expand on what 'status' returns, but as it stands it's efficient and front-loaded with the action verb.
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?
An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate. However, for a status-check tool, it could add a sentence about what the expected status values mean or when to interpret results, given users may want preflight checks before other Slack operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 single parameter account_id is documented with 'Slack credential account ID, usually "default"' plus a default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameter and there's only one, the baseline of 3 applies. The 'usually default' hint is provided by the schema, not the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool checks Slack connection status with a specific verb ("Check") and resource ("Slack connection status"). However, it's quite minimal and doesn't clarify what 'status' means - is it authentication validity, server connectivity, or API access? The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what status information is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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. Although it seems logically distinct from siblings like list_slack_channels or search_slack_messages, there's no explicit or implicit statement about when to check connection status before performing Slack operations. The tool would benefit from a note like 'use before Slack operations to verify connectivity.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosure burden. It doesn't state what happens after sending (e.g., sent confirmation, the email id), implications of account selection, irreversible nature of sending, or what occurs if the send fails. For an action with side effects (sending an email), this is a meaningful 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?
A single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. The description is appropriately front-loaded given the strong schema documentation already present.
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?
There is an output schema (per context signals), which reduces the need to describe return values. Schema covers all parameters and there's an account parameter with defaults handled. However, the description lacks guidance on usage context given the rich sibling set of email tools, and lacks behavioral detail about the send action for a tool 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 coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters have documented descriptions. The description adds marginal value — 'from one of your accounts' hints at the account parameter behavior, complementing the schema's 'If not specified, uses first available.' Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the heavy lifting and no parameter ambiguities exist.
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 'Send an email from one of your accounts' states the verb (send) and resource (email) clearly. It's distinguished from siblings like create_email_draft, draft_reply, and send_briefing_email through the act of actually sending vs drafting, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling set includes many email-related tools (create_email_draft, draft_reply, draft_follow_up, draft_email, send_briefing_email) where usage differentiation would be valuable, but the description provides no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. The description does not state whether the tool requires specific permissions, whether there are side effects (e.g., notifications sent to the assignee), or what happens on creation (e.g., confirmation format, ID returned). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, key behavioral context is missing.
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 efficient with two short sentences and zero waste. It front-loads the verb+resource in the first sentence and adds purpose context in the second. While brief, it 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?
There is an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, which reduces the burden. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, the description falls short on behavioral context (side effects, notifications) and doesn't clarify the manual vs. programmatic creation distinction referenced by 'manually.' It's minimally adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value over the schema beyond framing the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate further.
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+resource ('Create a new delegation manually') and adds the purpose context ('track a task you've assigned to someone'). It distinguishes from create_commitment by referencing assigned tasks/delegation specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The word 'manually' hints at an alternative creation path.
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 says 'Use this to track a task you've assigned to someone,' which gives reasonable usage context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives like create_commitment or create_follow_up, and there's no guidance on when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies creating a record but doesn't state whether creation is immediate/persistent, whether email fields trigger any notification or just store data, how priority defaults work, or what the response contains. For a creation tool, the agent has no idea about side effects beyond 'storing an item.'
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 reasonably sized - a brief lead sentence followed by three bullet examples. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet examples are somewhat verbose and some overlap in meaning ('check back on a project status' and 'promised to follow up on a topic' are similar concepts), so it's slightly longer than necessary but not bloated.
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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description's job is mainly to establish purpose and behavior. The purpose is well-covered, but the description doesn't clarify relationships to sibling creation tools (create_commitment, create_delegation) which is a notable gap given the large sibling set. For a straightforward item-creation tool with a clear output schema, this is adequate but not 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%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. The examples in the description help contextualize the tool's purpose (which informs parameter usage) but don't add specific parameter-level semantic detail, 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 clearly states the purpose ('Create a new follow-up item') with specific examples of use cases. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly - the verb 'create' vs the many get/search/fetch siblings makes it clear this is a creation tool, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from create_commitment, create_delegation, or create_asana_task, which are similar creation tools for related item types.
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 provides concrete example scenarios ('Waiting for a response', 'Need to check back on a project status', 'Promised to follow up') which help the agent understand when follow-ups are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this vs create_commitment or create_delegation, which are closely related sibling tools that the description doesn't address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'matching your writing style from previous emails' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it doesn't state that create_draft defaults to false (so by default no draft is saved), what happens with the generated text (is it returned for preview? auto-sent?), or the AI-negotiation aspects. The description implies AI generation but is vague on 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact at two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes. It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient and readable without 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?
There is an output schema which offloads return-value documentation, and 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, for an AI-assisted draft tool, the description doesn't clarify the default no-draft behavior (create_draft=false), how the user interacts with the AI-generated output, or typical invocation patterns. It's adequate but not thorough for a generative tool with multiple siblings in the same domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds the 'matching your writing style' context and clarifies the intended workflow, but doesn't add syntactic or semantic depth beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full 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 'Draft a new email with AI assistance' with a specific verb+resource and mentions it creates drafts based on context/instructions, matching writing style. It's clear about the core function but doesn't distinguish from siblings like draft_reply or draft_follow_up, which have similar drafting purposes — though the name itself plus context clarifies new email vs reply/follow-up.
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 it (creating a new email draft) but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like draft_reply or draft_follow_up, nor does it explain the relationship to send_email vs create_email_draft. The context makes the use case reasonably clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't mention pagination behavior, how the 'limit_per_account' interacts with the aggregation, whether multiple organizations cause multiple groupings, return format, or any side effects. For a read operation there's limited risk, but the description still doesn't disclose the full behavioral contract.
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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The second sentence adds meaningful aggregation detail. It's two short paragraphs with no wasted words. It could arguably be a single paragraph, but the structure is clean and 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?
An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The tool has only 1 parameter which is fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and a cross-account aggregation behavior that introduces complexity (multiple accounts, organizations, limits), the description could be more complete about how results are structured or limited. It's adequate but leaves open questions about the aggregation mechanics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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% for the single parameter (limit_per_account), which the schema fully documents with a default value and description. The description adds no additional detail about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 it retrieves unread emails from all authorized accounts, aggregating across Gmail and Outlook organized by organization. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource (unread emails from all authorized accounts) is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_inbox, get_organization_emails, or search_all_emails, though the 'aggregates across accounts/organization' phrasing provides some differentiation.
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 says what the tool does but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It mentions it aggregates across Gmail and Outlook accounts, implying it's for a broad cross-account overview, but doesn't name exclusion conditions or alternative tools. The 'organized by organization' hint gives some contextual usage signal but no explicit when-to-use 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Visible to the bot' implies authentication-style scoping but doesn't state that the account_id parameter selects which credential is used, whether results are sorted, how pagination works, or what happens with no channels. For a read/list operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency about the filtering behavior (exclude_archived default) would be expected.
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?
A single efficient sentence that captures the core purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for a straightforward list tool, this length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, which lowers the burden on the description. However, there are no annotations to convey read-only safety, and the description doesn't mention pagination expectations or whether archived channels are commonly encountered. For a simple listing tool with good schema coverage and an output schema, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 4 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify cursor mechanics, limit bounds, or the relationship between exclude_archived and default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Slack channels and conversations), with a scope modifier ('visible to the bot'). It distinguishes adequately from siblings like get_slack_channel_history (which implies message history) and search_slack_messages (message search), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for browsing available channels, and 'visible to the bot' hints at permission-scoped results. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_calendars, list_accounts, or list_organizations, and no mention of pagination behavior or rate limits for large channel counts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. The word 'Record' implies a write/persist operation, but the description doesn't state whether this updates existing meeting records, creates a new record, overwrites prior outcomes, or whether event_id must reference an existing calendar event. It doesn't disclose idempotency, error conditions for invalid event_id, or what happens to previously recorded outcomes.
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 compact with a header line followed by a short bulleted list of what to capture. Every sentence earns its place and there's no filler or redundancy. The structure aids scanning with the bullet points enumerating the conceptual capture categories.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters which adds complexity, but the output schema exists (which relieves some burden on return-value explanation). However, the description doesn't clarify the relationship between this tool and its siblings like get_meeting_outcome, get_recent_meeting_outcomes, and prepare_for_meeting. For a meeting-outcome write operation, the absence of details about whether event_id must be a validated calendar event 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by mapping the 'What was decided' (decisions), 'What's next' (next_steps), and 'Key discussion points' (key_points) parameters to conceptual groups, which helps the agent populate fields correctly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool records meeting outcomes with a specific verb+resource ('Record the outcomes of a meeting'). It distinguishes itself from related read tools like get_meeting_outcome and get_recent_meeting_outcomes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling write tools like create_commitment or create_follow_up, though the meeting-specific scope is clear.
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 says 'Use this after meetings to capture' and lists what to capture, which provides clear context on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., complete_commitment or create_follow_up for action items in a separate system). The context is implied rather than stated with 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. The description doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation (likely but unstated), what the return format is, whether partial matches or fuzzy matching are used, or any pagination/bounding behavior. For a search tool, this leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single-sentence description that is efficient and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. No wasted words, appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only 2 parameters (both documented), an output schema, and relatively simple semantics. The description covers the search scope adequately. However, without annotations and given it's a search tool among many siblings, a bit more context about scope (does it search across all users' commitments?) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both query and limit have descriptions). The description adds that the query searches title, description, or original text, which supplements the schema. However, it doesn't clarify what 'original text' means or how limit interacts with default behavior, so value beyond schema is modest.
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 (search) and resource (commitments), and specifies the searchable fields (title, description, or original text). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling search_delegations, but the resource is clearly identified, so purpose is clear enough.
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 it (when searching commitments by text) but doesn't provide explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. Siblings like get_all_commitments, search_delegations, and search_decisions exist, so some differentiation could help, but the purpose is reasonably self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 doesn't disclose behaviors like result ordering, rate limits, whether the query syntax differs per account (though the schema hints at this), or what happens if a query is invalid for a particular provider. The description is quite thin on 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?
A single short sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential search purpose and scope. Nothing to trim.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool searches across multiple providers (Gmail/Outlook per the query syntax note), which introduces complexity around result merging, ordering, and provider-specific limitations. The description doesn't address cross-provider behavior or how results are aggregated. An output schema helps with return format, but multi-provider search is more complex than a single filtered list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 query and limit_per_account documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (search) and resource (emails) and specifies scope ('ALL authorized accounts'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the cross-account search scope, which separates it from account-specific email tools like get_emails_from_sender and get_inbox.
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 it searches across all accounts but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_all_unread_emails, get_inbox, or per-sender searches. There's no when-not-to-use guidance, but 'across ALL authorized accounts' provides reasonable context for a broad search scenario.
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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the return content ('unread counts per account and organization'), which is useful, but it does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, how recent the counts are, or any freshness/aggregation behavior. It adds moderate context beyond the title.
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 tight two-part block: a one-line purpose and a returns note. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter 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?
The description explains the return value ('unread counts per account and organization'), which covers the key output semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value detail isn't strictly required. For a simple summary tool with no parameters and no nested objects, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention staleness/aggregation timing.
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 fully covers them (100%). The description adds semantic value by explaining what the summary contains (unread counts per account and organization), which clarifies the meaning of the tool's no-input contract. With 0 params, the baseline is 4., and the description meets it.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get a summary of email status across all accounts.' It names the subject (email status) and scope (all accounts), and the description adds 'per account and organization' granularity which distinguishes it from sibling email tools like get_inbox or get_all_unread_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With 60+ sibling tools including many email-related ones (get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, get_organization_emails), the description does not clarify when get_email_summary is preferable over those alternatives or what distinguishes it from them functionally.
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 burden. It discloses it's a read operation (get) and the plural 'accounts' implies it aggregates across multiple Asana accounts. However, it doesn't describe the return format (output schema exists, partially covering this), whether completed tasks are excluded by default (though the include_completed param implies this), or any pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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?
A single efficient sentence that states the purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more descriptive about scope. Given the schema handles parameter details, this level of brevity is appropriate.
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?
An output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it to explain what's returned. The tool is conceptually simple (get tasks) and the schema covers all 3 params fully. However, there's no mention of whether this returns only current tasks vs. historical ones, ordering, or how multiple accounts factor into the response shape, which would help an agent pick this over the many sibling task-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameters have useful descriptions (limit, account with null semantics, include_completed). The description adds little beyond the schema - it doesn't elaborate on formats or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting the description just reinforces the account-scoping concept.
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 it gets assigned tasks from Asana accounts (specific verb+resource). It's distinct from siblings like get_my_commitments or get_my_follow_ups since it specifically targets Asana-assigned tasks, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling tools by 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 retrieves tasks assigned to the user, and the params add context (per-account limits, completed-task exclusion). However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like create_asana_task, complete_asana_task, or search_commitments, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It's a read-type operation (get), and the include_completed default of false implies only open commitments are returned by default, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover return format, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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 concise and well-structured, with three illustrative examples that make the tool's purpose immediately tangible. No wasted words; the examples earn their space by disambiguating 'commitments others made to me' from related concepts.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-format explanation isn't needed. However, with no annotations and 2 parameters at full schema coverage, the description could add more value by clarifying the default behavior (excludes completed), potential ordering, and relationship to the search_commitments tool. 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and include_completed parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds example content but no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 lists commitments others made to me, with concrete examples that illustrate the concept well. It distinguishes from related 'my_commitments' family through the 'others made to me' framing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_my_commitments or get_all_commitments.
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 (when you want to see what others promised you) through examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like get_my_commitments, get_all_commitments, or search_commitments. No exclusions or differentiation guidance is provided for the closely related commitment-retrieval siblings.
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 burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Get' (vs mutate), and clarifies scope ('from all accounts', 'next N days'). However, it doesn't mention return format, pagination, sorting, or whether past/today events are included. For a read-only lookup with an output schema present, this is acceptable 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?
A single accurate sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place: verb, resource, time scope, and account scope all conveyed efficiently. Excellent front-loading of the key operation.
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 read-only tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, this description is adequate. It covers what's returned (events), the time scope, and the account scope. Minor gap: it doesn't note any cross-cutting behavior like canceled/declined events filtering or whether it includes all-day events, but given the simplicity, this is reasonably 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% - the single 'days' parameter is documented in the schema ('Number of days to look ahead, default 7'). The description implicitly references it via 'next N days' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for the one parameter.
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 'Get calendar events for the next N days from all accounts' - a clear verb (Get) + resource (calendar events) + scope (next N days, all accounts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_today_events and get_upcoming_events by specifying 'from all accounts' and 'next N days' lookahead, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 when-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like get_today_events, get_upcoming_events, and get_event_details likely overlap, but the description does not clarify when this tool should be preferred over them. The only implicit context is the 'next N days' lookahead scope, which is not presented as a differentiator.
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 burden. It describes the return content accurately (snapshots keyed by ISO week, newest last) and the ordering behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what 'closed-week' means operationally, whether the current in-progress week is excluded, or the format of the metrics object. The return shape is partially explained but behavioral edge cases are unaddressed.
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 compact (a few lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a brief 'Returns:' section that clarifies the output structure. It's efficient without excess, though the repeated mention of 'week history keyed by ISO week' is slightly redundant at the end.
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 0 params, no annotations, but an output schema present, the description explains the return shape (keyed by ISO week, newest last, includes metrics + executive note). The output schema presumably carries detailed return structure, so the description complements it well. It could note the relationship to close_week (a sibling) but is generally 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 tool has 0 parameters, and there is no input schema to compensate for. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need param details. The 0-param case is inherently fine; the description explains what data comes back instead, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for 0 params.
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 it retrieves the tech dashboard's closed-week snapshots with specific detail (metrics + executive note), newest last, plus the current ISO week key. It has a specific verb (get) and resource (closed-week snapshots). Among siblings like get_today_events, get_week_events, and get_morning_briefing, this is reasonably distinguishable, though it shares a general 'history' theme with get_person_history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 explains WHAT it returns (snapshots, metrics, executive note, ISO week key) but offers no guidance on WHEN to use it versus alternatives like get_week_events or close_week. It doesn't clarify that it only shows closed weeks (not the current week), nor does it distinguish from get_event_details or weekly briefing tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a read/list operation but doesn't describe pagination, potential volume of projects, authentication requirements, or what happens if the account is misconfigured. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a minimal disclosure that only implies safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before 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 with zero superfluous content. It states the core action and target resource efficiently. There is nothing to trim.
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 1-parameter optional tool, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials. It could mention whether results are restricted to a particular Asana workspace or include archived projects, but for a simple list operation with rich structured metadata, this is adequately 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 'account' parameter, which is already well-described in the schema ('Task account to query. If omitted, queries all authorized task accounts.'). The tool description doesn't add parameter context beyond what the schema already declares, so baseline 3 applies since 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 'List Asana projects for configured task accounts' uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (Asana projects), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on commitments, delegations, emails, or follow-ups. It lacks explicit mention of output scope but the action 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 context (querying task-related projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. There are no competing 'list projects' siblings, which softens the impact, but no clear when-to-use signal is present.
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 mentions the optional AI summary generation (requires OpenAI API key) which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, whether it mutates any state, whether emails are fetched from a particular scope, or what happens when the OpenAI key is missing despite include_ai_summary defaulting to true. There's no indication of a partial-failure mode.
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 compact two-sentence block that front-loads the purpose and then lists the scope in a bullet-free single sentence. It earns its space without padding, though the line breaks between the heading and first sentence add minor structural sloppiness.
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 moderately complex aggregation tool with an output schema and 100% param coverage. The description covers the breadth of what it gathers, but given the high sibling overlap (get_meeting_context, get_event_details, get_email_summary), it could be more explicit about how it differs from those and the behavioral implications of the AI summary flag failing. It's 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds context about AI talking points requiring an API key (complementing include_ai_summary), but doesn't elaborate beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description provides modest supplementary value.
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 'Prepares comprehensive context for an upcoming meeting' with a specific verb+resource. It enumerates what it gathers (event details, attendee info, recent emails, related tasks, AI talking points), which differentiates it from siblings like get_event_details and get_meeting_context, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 this is for preparing for an upcoming meeting, which is a clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like get_meeting_context or get_event_details, nor does it mention prerequisites or the relationship to the sibling read tools that overlap in function.
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. The description indicates this is a read/search operation but doesn't state return format details, pagination behavior, or whether results are sorted. However, since an output schema exists and this is a standard search tool, the description is minimally acceptable for a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief elaboration. Very efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence adds marginal value by stating the obvious ('search for decisions made in meetings by text').
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 search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema. The description states what it searches (decision log, decisions by text) but doesn't clarify how it differs from sibling tools like search_follow_ups or search_commitments, nor does it specify whether partial matching or exact matching is used. For a straightforward search tool this 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?
Schema coverage is 100% — both parameters (limit and query) are described in the input schema with defaults noted. The description adds the context that 'query' is a text search against decisions, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a clear verb+resource ('Search the decision log') and adds context about searching decisions by text from meetings. It correctly identifies the resource (decisions) and distinguishes the action (search). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from closely-related sibling tools like search_commitments or search_follow_ups beyond the 'decisions' resource.
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 this is used to find decisions via text search but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools like get_recent_decisions or get_meeting_decisions (which likely provide non-search retrieval paths). No exclusions or caveats about query format or use cases.
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 behavioral burden. It discloses ordering behavior (due date + priority) and overdue highlighting, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't state whether reaching out on snoozed/completed is destructive (it's a read, so its 'returns pending' wording implies read-only, which helps). It's a read operation, so risk is low, but pagination/return format details are absent.
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 compact at two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Get follow-up items that need attention') followed by behavior details. No wasted words. Could arguably be a single clear sentence, but the structure is efficient and effective.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior: what it returns (pending items), the ordering, and overdue emphasis. The description doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It's complete enough for a straightforward filtered-list tool, though it could mention when to prefer this over the overdue or person-scoped variants.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 documented in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (limit, include_snoozed, include_completed all have defaults and descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool gets follow-up items needing attention, with specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and resource ('follow-up items'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_overdue_follow_ups (specific to overdue) and get_follow_ups_with_person (person-scoped) by being the general pending-list version, though it doesn't explicitly name differences.
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 this is the general 'get all pending follow-ups' tool by being unspecific about filters, and the schema clarifies what optional filters exist (limit, snoozed, completed). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_overdue_follow_ups or search_follow_ups, which are closely related siblings an agent might confuse it with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 doesn't mention what happens if no recorded outcome exists (returns null/empty?), whether the tool can fail for missing event_id, or what data fields the outcome includes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does without redundancy.
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 has a simple signature (1 required param, 100% schema coverage, output schema present). The description sufficiently covers the core operation. It could enhance completeness with edge-case behavior (no outcome found) or clarification between 'outcome' versus 'decisions' from the same meeting, but for a read-retrieval tool of this simplicity, it's 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the event_id param has a description), but the description adds crucial context that event_id identifies the meeting whose outcome is retrieved. However, it doesn't clarify the ID format (calendar ID vs internal ID) or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 for full coverage, +1 for the meeting-outcome context tying the param to its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pattern ('Get the recorded outcome for a specific meeting'), clearly identifying the operation as retrieving a meeting outcome. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_meeting_decisions or get_meeting_context, though 'recorded outcome' implies the read counterpart of record_meeting_outcome.
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 it's the retrieval counterpart to record_meeting_outcome by naming convention and context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_meeting_decisions or get_meeting_context, nor does it clarify that an event_id is required to locate the meeting. No explicit when-not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what the tool returns (commitments I made) and gives examples, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether results are ordered. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit. Adequate 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact with one opening sentence and three example bullets that add concrete value. The examples efficiently clarify the concept of 'commitments I made to others'. No wasted words, though the bullet list could arguably be trimmed.
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 an output schema present and schema coverage at 100% for parameters, the description complements structured data reasonably well. The examples disambiguate commitment types, and the scope ('made to others') differentiates it from siblings. For a simple filtered-list read tool this is fairly complete, though it could note relationship to get_all_commitments and get_others_commitments.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 parameters have descriptions in the schema (limit default 50, include_completed default False). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema. The semantic distinction between completed and non-completed commitments is understandable from parameter names alone, 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 title 'get_my_commitments' is fairly descriptive, and the description adds specificity: it retrieves commitments the user made to OTHERS, with concrete examples distinguishing it from get_others_commitments and get_all_commitments. It's clear about verb+resource+scope, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives in the description text.
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 (commitments I made to others) and the examples clarify what counts as a commitment. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs get_all_commitments, get_others_commitments, or get_overdue_commitments. Guidance is implied through the scope but no explicit alternatives are 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states follow-ups are filtered by due date and completion status, and notes results are ordered by due date. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, page size limits, or what fields are returned beyond the output schema. The description adds some value but leaves transparency gaps.
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 concise at three short lines. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the ordering detail. The 'Returns:' line somewhat repeats the opening statement (redundant phrasing about overdue follow-ups), which seems as if it's a lightweight docstring template. Minor redundancy but 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably adequate. However, given no annotations and a mutation-heavy sibling set (complete_follow_up, create_follow_up, update_follow_up), the description could clarify that this is a read operation and clarify what action the caller is expected to take with the results (e.g., which ones need completion). The ordering detail is helpful but not comprehensive.
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 parameter semantics are straightforward. With no parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially, since there are none), the baseline 4 is appropriate since there's nothing for the description to clarify.
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 gets overdue follow-ups, defined as 'past their due date and not completed.' The verb+resource is specific and the scope (overdue, uncompleted) is explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like get_follow_ups and complete_follow_up well enough, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling 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 (fetching overdue follow-ups that need action) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references. Siblings like search_follow_ups exist but aren't mentioned as alternatives for filtering use cases.
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's clearly a read-only operation (says 'Get' and 'Shows'), and mentions what interactions are included (emails, meetings, etc.). However, it doesn't disclose the output format/structure, whether data is chronological, or any caveats about completeness—moderate but not minimal coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, zero fluff. The essence and a usage hint are front-loaded in the first sentence. The 'Useful for preparing...' line adds genuine value rather than filler. Could be slightly more structured but is 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?
The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, both well-documented in schema) and has an output schema to convey return value structure. The description covers purpose and usage context effectively. Given the simplicity of the tool, the completeness is adequate—though a note on result ordering or time window scope would push it higher.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (email and limit with default of 5). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, though it does clarify 'recent' and the interaction types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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+resource ('Get recent interaction history with a person') and specifies the scope (recent interactions like emails, meetings). It's understandable in isolation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_relationship_summary or get_meeting_context, which could overlap conceptually.
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 gives useful context ('Useful for preparing for meetings or refreshing your memory') which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly call out when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools like get_relationship_summary or get_meeting_context that may serve overlapping purposes.
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 implies mutation (updating a follow-up) and describes the field categories (status, priority, due date, notes, snooze). But it doesn't disclose requirements (e.g., whether the follow-up must already exist, error behavior, or ownership/auth requirements). For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would help.
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 concise and front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a compact 4-item bullet list. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly tighter, but it's well-structured and readable.
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 has 6 parameters (all self-explanatory with enum-like value hints in schema), an output schema exists, and no nested objects. The description's bullet list maps cleanly to the parameters (completed->status, snooze->snooze_until). For a moderately simple update tool with full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. Missing: no mention of partial vs full update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions for each. The description adds the snooze_until semantic hint (that it sets status to snoozed), but this is also reflected in the schema description. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description complements rather than replaces the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a follow-up item' with a specific verb (update) and resource (follow-up item). It distinguishes from siblings like create_follow_up and complete_follow_up. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from complete_commitment or update_delegation which are separate sibling operations on related concepts.
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 provides a useful bulleted list of concrete use cases (mark completed, change priority/due date, snooze, add notes), which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives like complete_commitment or when to prefer get_follow_ups for reading. The use-case list effectively serves as guidance but lacks 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the return format (summary text and counts) and a concrete example, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this aggregates across all data sources, what time window it covers, or any side effects or dependencies.
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 brief and well-organized with a heading and example. The 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant with the output schema existing, which slightly reduces the score, but the overall structure is clean 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?
With 0 parameters, an output schema present, and siblings like get_daily_briefing/get_morning_briefing, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could clarify how it differs from get_daily_briefing and get_morning_briefing to fully resolve tool-selection ambiguity, but the core info is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the exact output format ('3 meetings, 2 pending replies, 1 overdue task' with summary text and counts), which is the only semantic dimension applicable here.
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 it retrieves a one-line summary of the day's status, with a concrete example format. It distinguishes from detailed summary tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_morning_briefing or get_daily_briefing.
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 says it's 'perfect for a quick status check' and contrasts 'without the full details', which implies it's for quick checks versus detailed briefings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_daily_briefing or get_morning_briefing for when full details are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. The description states it is read-only in nature (summarizing emails and calendar counts) and constrains scope to 'unread emails and today's events across all accounts,' which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, potential rate limits, account aggregation behavior, or any edge cases (e.g., what happens with no events or emails).
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose on the first line. The comparative note about get_morning_briefing is valuable and earns its place. Minor redundancy exists between 'quick daily briefing summary' in the title line and 'lighter-weight version' phrasing, but this is negligible.
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?
There is no output schema specified at the top level, but the description does note it 'Returns: Summary of unread emails and today's events.' The context signal says 'Has output schema: true,' and the description adequately covers return value scope. For a zero-parameter, read-only summary tool with a sibling differentiation, the description is reasonably complete though it could mention page/result size limits.
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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adequately conveys what data the tool returns without needing to explain any parameter syntax.
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+resource ('Get a quick daily briefing summary') and clearly identifies what it shows ('email and calendar counts'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_morning_briefing by framing itself as a 'lighter-weight version,' which provides differentiation. However, it doesn't precisely name which sibling it differs from by explicit purpose boundaries beyond the one comparison.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool by pointing to get_morning_briefing as the alternative for a 'full comprehensive briefing.' This creates a clear context for when this lightweight version is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit affirmative conditions for exactly when an agent should prefer this over other summary tools like get_briefing_summary or get_today_events.
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 'across all accounts' scope which is useful behavioral context not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or what 'emails' means (full vs summary) despite having an output schema that could clarify this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and scoping constraint, making it immediately actionable. Nothing extraneous.
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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description carries less burden. However, given the large sibling set of email tools and no annotations, some additional guidance on behavior (ordering, pagination, what counts as a match) would strengthen completeness. Adequate but not fully fleshed out for the search-like nature of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (sender and limit) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds the 'across all accounts' semantic and confirms the sender field accepts email or domain, which complements rather than repeats the schema. The baseline of 3 applies, and the sender semantic clarification nudges it to 4.
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 emails) and resource (from a specific sender), with the scoping constraint 'across all accounts' adding useful specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like search_all_emails and get_inbox by the sender-filter focus, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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 use when needing sender-filtered emails, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. There are many email-sibling tools (get_inbox, search_all_emails, get_email_thread, get_all_unread_emails), yet no mention of when this tool is preferable to searching, or what distinguishes 'get emails from sender' from a general search.
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 full behavioral burden. It's a read operation, so safety is inherently clear from 'Get', but the description doesn't disclose return format (despite an output schema existing), pagination behavior, ordering of results, or how the limit applies per account. Some behavioral context is implied but 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?
One clean sentence, zero waste, immediately states the core action and scope. Efficient 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With 100% schema parameter coverage, the tool is adequately documented. The description covers the key purpose and scope variance. However, no guidance on ordering, pagination, or typical usage patterns, which would slightly improve completeness for a list-retrieval 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%, so all three parameters (limit, account, unread_only) are documented at the schema level. The description adds the account-vs-all-accounts distinction, but that's already in the schema for the account parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond schema; 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?
Description states the verb ('Get'), resource ('inbox emails'), and a key scope dimension ('from a specific account or all accounts'). It distinguishes partially from siblings like get_all_unread_emails (which targets all unread) and search_all_emails (search). Purpose is clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related get_all_unread_emails.
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 (retrieve inbox emails from one or all accounts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_all_unread_emails or search_all_emails. The account parameter clarifies the single-vs-all distinction, but no direct exclusions or alternative tool names are referenced.
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 burden, but it's a read-only aggregation tool so there's inherently low risk. The description discloses what's included and that it returns both summary and detailed sections. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or whether email content is included in full, but for a zero-parameter aggregation tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 well-structured with clear bullet points listing aggregation categories and a concrete example of the return format. It's efficient without being sparse, though the 'Returns:' block somewhat duplicates what's already stated in the opening line and could be trimmed.
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 has zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, so the description's job is to clarify what data is pulled and how it's presented. It covers the aggregation scope well and gives a representative output example. For a zero-parameter aggregator with an output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention whether the briefing is time-limited to 'today' or included other windows.
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 with 100% schema coverage there's nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here since there are no parameter semantics to add meaning to, and the description's sample output format ('3 meetings, 2 pending replies, 1 overdue item') provides helpful context about what the results look like.
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 aggregates a comprehensive morning briefing including calendar events, emails, overdue items, pending replies, and waiting items. It distinguishes from siblings like get_daily_briefing and get_briefing_summary by being specifically a morning briefing that aggregates multiple categories, providing a clear summary example.
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 explains what data is aggregated and shows a sample summary format, implying it's the go-to for a consolidated morning overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like get_daily_briefing or get_briefing_summary, and there's no mention of prerequisites or timing considerations.
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 burden. It discloses that results are filtered to past-due, incomplete delegations and notes ordering by due date. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not stated), pagination, or output structure beyond a vague 'Returns' note.
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 efficient and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then scoping and return ordering details. The 'Returns' section could arguably be trimmed since an output schema exists, but it's brief and adds ordering info not necessarily in the schema. No wasted sentences.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed in the description. The tool is a simple param-free filtered list (overdue delegations). The description covers the filter criteria (past due, incomplete) and ordering (by due date), which is complete for this straightforward read tool. It could mention the relationship to get_delegations but isn't critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (100%), so there's no parameter under-documentation risk. The description's focus on what's returned and how it's ordered is the relevant semantic content. This is appropriately handled given the param-free schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all overdue delegations' with a specific verb+resource. It adds scope details ('past their due date that haven't been completed'), effectively distinguishing from generic get_delegations. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, the 'overdue' qualifier clearly signals the differentiation.
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 it (to find unfinished delegations past due date) through the 'overdue' framing and return criteria, but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't say 'when not to use' or reference sibling tools like get_delegations or get_overdue_commitments, leaving usage context to inference.
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 burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait: aggregation across ALL authorized accounts (vs a single account). However, it doesn't disclose what the return format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or anything about how multi-account aggregation behaves (e.g., deduplication, ordering, timezone handling). The output schema exists, which mitigates some of this, but the description is thin on 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, about 15 words, with no filler. The 'Returns:' section is nearly redundant with the description itself ('Today's events aggregated from all calendar accounts' restates the first sentence), which is minor waste. Could be tighter but is otherwise 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 zero-parameter read-only aggregation tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It states what it returns and its scope. Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, read operation), it doesn't need extensive behavioral disclosure. However, it could briefly mention that this spans multiple accounts to justify why it might be more expensive or inclusive than alternatives like get_upcoming_events.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (trivially, since there are no params to document). The description is not adding parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies here - there's nothing to add, and the description correctly focuses on the result rather than inputs.
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+resource: 'Get today's calendar events from ALL authorized accounts.' It explicitly calls out the scope (ALL authorized accounts) which distinguishes it from other event tools like get_upcoming_events and get_week_events. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, so it doesn't fully differentiate.
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 conveys the primary use case (today's events across all accounts) implicitly. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_upcoming_events or get_week_events for other time ranges. The scope limitation (ALL accounts) implies a contrast with account-specific views, but this is not made 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 provided, but this is a read-only listing operation with 0 parameters, so behavioral disclosure burden is low. The description notes it returns 'authorization status' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether it excludes any org types. The read-only nature is obvious from the 'List' verb.
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 compact at nearly two sentences/three lines. It front-loads the core purpose immediately ('List all configured organizations') and adds brief return information. Slight redundancy between the main description and the 'Returns:' section, but not excessive.
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 0 parameters and a clean listing operation, the description is largely sufficient. It has an output schema and no nested objects. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction between an 'organization' resource and the 'accounts' it returns, or how this relates to sibling tools like list_accounts. Adequate but misses opportunity to clarify relationship to account-returning siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, so the schema fully covers everything (100% coverage). With zero parameters, no param semantics burden exists; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool.
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 ('all configured organizations') and specifies scope ('all configured') plus a return detail (with their accounts). It's distinguishable from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_calendars by its explicit 'organizations' 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_accounts or get_organization_emails. It doesn't explain selection criteria, ordering, or any filtering considerations. The description says nothing about prerequisites or context in which this tool should be preferred.
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 behavioral burden. It explains what data is returned (things you've asked others to do) and gives concrete examples. However, it doesn't describe whether results are sorted, paginated, or whether read-only guarantees apply. Since no annotations exist, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some transparency but not deep 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 compact: one opening sentence plus three illustrative examples. The examples are useful and take minimal space. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 is a simple filtered listing with only 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. The distinction between owned vs. delegated tasks could be clearer given the many sibling commitment/delegation tools, but for its complexity level the description covers the essential semantics. The tool has an output schema, so return format doesn't need describing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description's examples (client report, review contract) help the agent understand what 'delegated' means conceptually, slightly enriching parameter interpretation. But the parameters are documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states "Get tasks you've delegated to others" with a specific verb+resource. The examples of delegated tasks further clarify what constitutes a delegation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_delegations_to_person, get_overdue_delegations, or get_all_commitments, though the scope (things you delegated) is clear.
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 conveys that this shows delegations you've initiated but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_delegations_to_person, get_overdue_delegations, or get_my_commitments. The examples imply it's a general listing, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read/query operation (returns overdue commitments) which implies non-mutating behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only, mention ordering besides by due date, describe pagination, or note any relationship to delegation tools with similar 'overdue' semantics.
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 compact — roughly three short sentences plus a 'Returns' note. The opening line states purpose immediately, followed by the filter criterion and the ordering guarantee. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns:' section somewhat redundantly repeats ordering info already stated.
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 an output schema present and zero parameters, the description must only clarify what 'overdue' means and what ordering applies — both are covered. It mentions 'both directions' which is useful scoping. For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could hint at how it differs from get_overdue_follow_ups and get_overdue_delegations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add on parameter meaning. The description compensates by explaining what the operation does and its return format (ordered by due date). For a zero-parameter tool, this is a solid 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 clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (overdue commitments), and a scope qualifier ('both directions' — meaning both given and received commitments). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_commitments, get_others_commitments, and get_overdue_delegations. The distinction is explicit and effective.
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 clarifies it returns commitments past due date that aren't completed. The 'both directions' scoping adds context, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_commitments, get_all_commitments, or get_overdue_delegations. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated with alternatives.
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 tool lists accounts with authorization status, which implies read-only behavior, but it doesn't state whether this involves network latency, authentication requirements, or what 'authorization status' means in practical terms. The inclusion of an output schema helps, but behavioral detail is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions 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 compact - two short sentences that state the purpose and the return content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. This is exemplary conciseness for a zero-parameter listing 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope. It names what is returned (accounts with authorization status). It could be slightly more explicit about that this complements list_calendars, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, this is largely 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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately compensates by describing the output scope.
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 the verb ('List') and resource ('configured accounts') and adds the scope of 'authorization status.' It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_calendars, but the resource is clearly accounts rather than calendars, so differentiation is reasonably implied. A clearer sibling distinction or mention of purpose would push this to 5.
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 a simple enumeration use case ('list all configured accounts') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinctions from related tools like list_calendars or list_organizations. The context of checking account authorization status is implied but not stated as a scenario.
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 description notes the tool aggregates across 'all authorized accounts' and returns a list 'grouped by account' - this is useful behavioral context about output structure. However, it doesn't disclose information about rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no calendars exist. With zero annotations, a bit more behavioral disclosure would strengthen this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions 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: one stating the action and one describing the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with zero filler or redundancy. Ideal length for a zero-parameter 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?
The tool has 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and the description explains the output grouping. For a simple list-all tool with no inputs, the description covers what's needed: what it does and what it returns. The output schema presumably handles return structure details, so the description is sufficient.
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?
There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully covered). The description adds meaning about what the output represents (calendars grouped by account), which is beyond what the empty schema provides. For a zero-parameter tool, baseline is 4.
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 and resource: 'List all calendars from all authorized accounts.' It specifies scope ('all', 'from all authorized accounts') but doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings. However, sibling names like list_accounts and list_organizations are clearly different resources, so differentiation is implied through the resource name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool lists all calendars across all authorized accounts, which implies broad scope. It doesn't provide when-to-use vs alternative guidance or exclusions, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool this is mostly adequate. No mention of when to use it over say list_accounts or get_event_details.
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 that it processes unread emails (which could be a large volume operation) and describes what it returns (statistics). However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether this permanently forwards/marks emails as handled, whether it's idempotent, or whether running it multiple times has consequences. No contradictions with annotations since 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief mechanism note, the automatic-frequency context, and a return summary. Every sentence earns its place. Zero waste, appropriately sized for a parameterless trigger action.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is less critical, though the description still summarizes it. For a trigger-action tool with no parameters, the description covers the core behavioral context: what it does, when it normally runs, and what it returns. Slightly more detail on side effects or idempotency would push it higher, but it's adequate for a simple action tool.
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?
There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return value instead, since there are no inputs to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a 0-param tool is appropriate, and the description adds value by describing what the action does.
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+resource combination ('Run email forward rules') and states what it does: processes unread emails and forwards matching rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_email_forward_rules (which reads rules) and test_email_forward_rules (which tests them) by indicating this actually executes the forwarding immediately. However, it could more explicitly contrast against test_email_forward_rules to fully distinguish execution from testing.
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 indicates this is for running rules immediately rather than waiting for the automatic 5-minute cycle, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like test_email_forward_rules for validation scenarios. The 'normally runs automatically every 5 minutes' note implies an on-demand override use case but doesn't fully explore the 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. 'Create' clearly implies mutation, and the description adds the manual-vs-auto-detection context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens upon creation (return format, whether duplicates are checked, permission requirements), though the presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to explain return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions 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 with zero wasted words. 'Create a new commitment manually' states the action and scope, and 'Use this to track a promise that wasn't auto-detected' adds the key use case. Every sentence 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?
This is a create-type tool with 9 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the fundamental purpose and use case. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The manually-created/auto-detected distinction adds meaningful context about when this tool is appropriate versus relying on automatic detection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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% (all 9 parameters are described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level context that this is 'manual' creation, but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or edge cases beyond what the schema documents. The description mentions tracking promises, which maps conceptually to direction (i_promised/they_promised), but that linkage is implicit.
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 this tool creates a new commitment manually, using 'Create' as a specific verb with a clear resource ('commitment'). It adds the scope 'manually' and purpose 'track a promise that wasn't auto-detected', which differentiates it from the many read/search sibling tools for commitments. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from related mutation siblings like create_delegation or create_follow_up.
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 for when to use this tool: tracking a promise that wasn't auto-detected. 'Use this to track a promise that wasn't auto-detected' implies manual creation is for cases where automatic detection failed. This provides reasonable when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like create_delegation.
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 burden. It discloses that the tool 'generates a polite follow-up that references the original message' and that create_draft controls whether a draft is saved. However, it doesn't disclose whether it will reference thread context, how the output is returned (draft vs plain text), or any side effects beyond the optional create_draft flag.
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 three-sentence description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it produces. Slightly more could be packed but current length is well-balanced.
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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage, which offloads much of the burden. The description covers the core scenario and output nature. It could mention the optional follow_up_id linkage more explicitly, but given the rich schema and output schema present, completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the key instruction that instructions parameter accepts tone/deadline hints, and notes the account uses first available. Given full schema coverage baseline is 3, the description slightly adds by clarifying the interplay and referencing get_follow_ups for the follow_up_id parameter.
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 it drafts a follow-up email for a message awaiting response, with a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like draft_email, draft_reply, and create_email_draft by focusing specifically on follow-ups to unreplied emails, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.
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 use context ('when you sent an email and haven't received a reply'). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives like draft_reply or draft_email, but the follow-up-specific framing and connection to get_follow_ups parameter imply the domain clearly.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows') which signals non-destructive behavior. It describes the output structure (list of rules with conditions and actions). While it could add more behavioral detail, the read-only nature is clearly conveyed and there's no contradiction.
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 compact and efficient—a title line plus a brief functional summary and a short Returns note. Every sentence adds meaning. It's not overly verbose, though the Returns section formatting (using markdown-style header) is slightly unusual but acceptable.
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?
There is an output schema and no parameters, so the description's job is straightforward. It explains the purpose, what the returned data contains, and what the rules do. Given the simple nature (a parameterless listing tool), this is reasonably complete. It could mention whether rules are returned in a particular order or whether inactive rules are included, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (which is trivially satisfied since there are no parameters to document). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately explains what the returned data contains (conditions and actions), which adds value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get all configured email forward rules') that clearly states what the tool does. It elaborates with what the rules do (forward emails based on sender, subject, or other criteria), which distinguishes it somewhat from general email tools. However, within the large sibling set there are related tools like test_email_forward_rules and run_email_forward_now, and the description doesn't explicitly position itself relative to those, though the read-action vs action verbs help differentiate.
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 this is a retrieval tool for viewing configured rules but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like test_email_forward_rules or run_email_forward_now. There's no when/when-not guidance. The 'Returns' section clarifies output but doesn't address selection criteria against sibling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what data is returned (relationship summary, history, commitments) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose potential privacy implications, data freshness, or whether this aggregates from multiple sources. The output schema exists, but the behavioral scope could be richer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and front-loaded: purpose stated immediately, bulleted output list, and a one-line usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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 read-only context-gathering tool with a good output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys what output to expect and when to use it. It could mention whether stale or minimal relationships are handled gracefully, but this is adequate for the tool's moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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%, so the description doesn't need to heavily document parameters. The description notes 'For each attendee' and 'per person' for history_limit, which aligns with the schema descriptions. The description adds a small nuance (context is per-attendee) but the schema already handles parameter semantics well.
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 relationship context for meeting attendees, listing the specific outputs (relationship summary, interaction history, commitments). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like get_relationship_summary and get_person_history by being attendee-focused and meeting-oriented, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
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 explicitly says 'Use this before meetings to be fully prepared,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer it complements rather than replaces other commitment/relationship 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait: the join is specifically for reading history ('so the bot can read its history'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., joining is permanent, does it appear as a member?), prerequisites (channel must be public, bot needs permission), or error conditions. The mention of 'public' is a meaningful constraint disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero filler words. Every word ('Join', 'public', 'Slack channel', 'so the bot can read its history') earns its place. Highly 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?
This is a simple side-effect action (joining a channel) with an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage. The description adequately conveys what it does, for what purpose, and the public-channel constraint. Given the tool's simplicity and good schema/annotations, the description is fairly complete. It could note error conditions or permissions, but for a straightforward join action this is reasonably 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (channel_id and account_id). The description adds the 'public' qualifier context and 'read its history' purpose, but doesn't add syntax/format details about channel_id beyond what the schema provides nor explain the default account_id behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 ('Join a public Slack channel') and adds the purpose ('so the bot can read its history'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_slack_channels (listing) and get_slack_channel_history (reading history of an already-joined channel).
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 purpose (reading history) which hints at when to use it, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusion criteria, and doesn't mention that only public channels can be joined or how it relates to get_slack_channel_history. 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the critical safety property ('dry run', 'without actually forwarding them'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (which rules matched, format) even though it has an output schema that could have been referenced, nor edge cases like limits on hours_back.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: the core purpose in one line, the safety clarification, and the usage hint. Zero wasted words, 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?
This is a simple dry-run tool with one documented parameter and an output schema. The description explains the safety-critical dry-run behavior and the testing use case, which is sufficient. It could mention it complements run_email_forward_now, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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 (hours_back), so the schema fully documents it. The description says 'recent emails' and 'Checks which emails would be forwarded', which loosely implies the hours_back scope but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema's default of 24. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.
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 (test), resource (email forward rules), and scope ('against recent emails', 'dry run'). It distinguishes from siblings like run_email_forward_now (which actually performs the forwarding) and get_email_forward_rules (which lists rules). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling, so it stops short of 5.
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 says it's 'Useful for testing rules before enabling them', providing clear context for when to use. It implies the alternative is running the rules for real, but doesn't explicitly name run_email_forward_now as the contrasting tool. No explicit when-not or alternatives are named, so it doesn't reach 5.
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 disclosure burden. It doesn't explicitly say this is a mutating/write operation, though 'mark...as completed' strongly implies state change. It doesn't mention return values, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. Acceptable but minimal for a mutation tool with no 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that convey the purpose and relationship to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place, and the shorthand framing efficiently communicates intent without redundancy.
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 there's only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does. The shorthand reference to update_follow_up gives useful context for agents familiar with that tool. It's complete for a simple single-parameter mutation tool.
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 single parameter follow_up_id has 100% schema coverage with a clear description 'ID of the follow-up to complete.' The description reinforces the semantic by stating the context of the parameter. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, there's little room for additional parameter explanation.
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 'Mark a follow-up as completed' with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies it's a shorthand for update_follow_up with status=completed, which effectively distinguishes its purpose from the sibling update_follow_up tool.
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 a clear usage context by framing it as a shorthand for update_follow_up with status=completed. This implicitly signals when to use this tool (when you just want to complete a follow-up without specifying other fields) versus the more general update_follow_up alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the analysis behavior (thread history, style matching, commitment tracking) which is helpful context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether create_draft actually saves, where drafts are stored, or whether the tool needs specific auth/permissions.
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 concise (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet-like second paragraph adds meaningful differentiators without padding. Slightly verbose in the multi-line formatting but otherwise well-structured.
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 drafting tool with an output schema available and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how it behaves (context awareness, style matching), and what it considers (commitments). It could add more on side effects and return behavior, but the existing annotations coverage makes this reasonably 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%, so the schema already explains all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the tool's behavior but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond what schema descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the 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 clearly states the verb+resource ('Draft a reply to an email thread') and highlights its differentiators: context awareness, thread analysis, writing style matching, and open commitment/delegation consideration. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling drafting tools like create_email_draft, draft_email, and draft_follow_up.
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 explains what makes this tool special (context awareness, style matching, commitment consideration), which helps an agent choose it over create_email_draft or draft_email. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like draft_email for the simplest cases.
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 thoroughly explains what the tool returns (contact metrics, staleness flag, commitments), but doesn't disclose whether staleness uses the passed threshold, read-only behavior is implied but not stated, or performance characteristics. It adds reasonable behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a clear header line, a bulleted list of return contents, and a usage recommendation. The bullet list is efficient and front-loads the key purpose. The single usage sentence earns its place. Well structured and scannable without redundancy.
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 an output schema exists (so return format is documented elsewhere) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It lists key output categories and provides usage context. It could mention how staleness interacts with the threshold parameter across invocations, but for a read-only summary tool with good schema support, this is reasonably 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (email and stale_threshold_days). The description adds context on staleness (the concept and default threshold reference) but doesn't add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation well.
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: 'Get comprehensive relationship summary for a person' and enumerates the specific data it returns (last contact date, days since last contact, interaction count, commitments, staleness). This distinct resource+verb clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_person_history and get_meeting_context.
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 ends with explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before meetings to understand your relationship history.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, sibling tools like get_follow_ups_with_person and get_stale_relationships exist as narrower alternatives, so some exclusion context would strengthen this. The meeting 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool aggregates (pending delegations), what is returned (counts per person, oldest item age), and the grouping logic. However, it's a read operation with no safety concerns needing disclosure, and it has an output schema that covers return structure. The 'oldest item age' detail adds useful behavioral context beyond the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a one-line summary, an illustrative example, a clarification of grouping logic, and a returns section. Each element earns its place. Slightly verbose in the 'Returns' section which repeats info arguably covered by the output schema, but the example and grouping details are valuable context not in the schema.
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 simple (zero params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description's job is light. It clearly explains the aggregation semantics, grouping by assignee, and key output fields. For a read-only summary tool, this is reasonably complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming sibling alternatives for when a user wants raw lists instead of aggregates.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond confirming no configuration is needed. With 0 params and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details and instead focuses on what the output means.
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?
Uses a specific verb+resource ('Get a summary of what you're waiting on from each person') and provides concrete examples of the output ('Waiting on: 3 items from Sarah, 2 from Mike'). The phrase 'Groups pending delegations by assignee' distinguishes this from related sibling tools like get_delegations or get_my_commitments by clarifying it's an aggregated, person-grouped view.
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 clear this aggregates waiting-on items across people, which distinguishes it from get_delegations (raw list) and get_delegations_to_person (person-filtered). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for raw/individual delegation views. The intended use case is implied (wanting a high-level overview) rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.
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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well: declares that a week already closed is not overwritten unless force=True, explains the snapshot is persisted as injectable history, and notes it keys by ISO week. This is non-obvious stateful behavior (idempotency/locking semantics) that the schema alone could not convey. Slight gap: it doesn't describe what the return/output looks like, but an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences with zero waste. The front-loaded opening sentence states purpose immediately, and the second sentence explains the mechanism, with the third handling the overwrite edge case. Efficient and well-ordered.
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 7-parameter stateful mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, how persistence works, the ISO-week keying, and the force/overwrite semantics. With a 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, this is quite complete. Minor gap: no explicit statement that this is a mutating/state-changing operation or what happens on error, but the overwrite language strongly implies mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the week keying ('keyed by ISO week') and the force overwrite semantics, which enrich the schema descriptions for week and force. However, it doesn't add meaning to the metric parameters (clients, roadmap, done, urgent, notes) 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 verb 'close the week' plus 'tech dashboard by saving a snapshot' is specific and describes the resource and action clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings (all the get_/create_/search_ commitment and decision tools) by describing a dashboard-specific week-closing action with snapshot persistence and ISO-week keying.
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 conveys when this tool is used (at week close to save a snapshot) and what it produces (persists history so next week's view knows where this one ended). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the domain separation reasonably clear since no other tool approximates week-closing on the dashboard.
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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the two selection criteria (no-contact days, importance level) and the use case. It doesn't specify return format details, but given that an output schema exists, the description reasonably focuses on the filtering logic and intent. The behavioral characteristics (read operation, staleness heuristic) are well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The follow-up content is structured with a bullet-style list and a use-case sentence. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, criteria, and when-to-use. No redundancy or filler.
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 3 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and no nested objects, this is a moderately simple tool. The description captures the selection logic and use case thoroughly. The only minor gap is not specifying how results are ordered (e.g., by staleness severity or importance), which could affect agent expectations, but overall the tool is well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (limit, days_threshold, min_importance) with defaults and explanations. The description adds value by naming the actual filtering concepts (no contact in N days, importance level) that map to the parameters, but this is modest added value over the already-complete schema. 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 verb+resource ('Get important people you haven't contacted recently') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on relationship staleness and importance. It explicitly enumerates the filtering criteria (no-contact days, importance level), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from follow-up, commitment, delegation, and meeting tools.
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 for when to use this tool ('to identify clients, partners, or colleagues you should reach out to') and explains the selection criteria. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but given the large sibling set, the 'important people you haven't contacted' framing provides sufficient differentiation guidance without needing to list every sibling.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/gppsys/personalcopilotmcp'

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