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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only contexts with an existing compilation database and clangd are listed, which is useful filtering context, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or performance.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core function immediately and wastes no words.

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

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

Given the simple read-only nature, zero parameters, and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what a 'CMake context' is or when an agent should prefer this discovery tool, leaving a small contextual gap.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap.

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

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CMake contexts'), plus qualifying conditions ('existing compilation database and clangd'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like clangd_diagnostics or cmake_configure, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmake_profiles or clangd_workspace_symbols. It simply states what is listed, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts (external locations resolve against root/, empty configurations selects all), but says nothing about indexing prerequisites, failure modes, or latency/timeout behavior.

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

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

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is telegrammatic ('External locations use root/') and slightly cryptic, but it is compact rather than verbose.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves path, timeout, and the position coordinate convention unaddressed, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the four top-level parameters. The description explains only 'configurations' (empty selects all); path and timeout are undocumented anywhere, and position is only implied by 'at the supplied position'. With low coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Find definitions of the symbol at the supplied position'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like clangd_references or clangd_hover, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus clangd_references, clangd_hover, or clangd_document_symbols, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the file must be indexed by clangd). The only usage-like text concerns configuration resolution, which is parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that an empty configurations array selects all, which is useful, but says nothing about timeout behavior or what diagnostics are produced. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is 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.

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

Two short sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded but still earns its place by documenting a non-obvious default.

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

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

An output schema exists so return values need no description, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, the definition should do more to document the timeout parameter and clarify path semantics for a tool with zero schema coverage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'managed file' meaning of path and the empty-equals-all semantics of configurations, but leaves timeout entirely undocumented. Partial compensation for a 3-parameter tool.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get diagnostics for a managed file'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read/edit siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with the other clangd_* tools, so differentiation is only partial.

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

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

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The sentence 'Empty configurations selects all' describes parameter behavior rather than routing the agent to this tool over siblings like clangd_hover or clangd_references.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-selection behavior of the configurations array but says nothing about return shape, timing, or clangd-server dependency; with annotations and an output schema present, this is an acceptable but thin addition.

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

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

Two short sentences, purpose first, parameter note second. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety duties, and the configurations semantics are covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, 'path' (what counts as a managed file) and 'timeout' semantics remain unexplained.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the configurations default ('empty selects all'), which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'path' and 'timeout' entirely undefined, so it only partially covers the three parameters.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List the symbols declared in a managed file'), which distinguishes it from the sibling clangd_workspace_symbols (project-wide) by scoping to a single file. The term 'managed file' is slightly jargon-y but understandable in context.

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

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

No when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like clangd_hover, clangd_definition, or clangd_workspace_symbols. The only usage-ish statement ('Empty configurations selects all') is about parameter behavior, not tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'Empty configurations selects all,' which clarifies default behavior, but it does not discuss timeout handling, path semantics, or output characteristics.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The only minor issue is the awkward phrasing 'Empty configurations selects all,' but overall there is little wasted text.

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

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

For a simple read-only hover tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core action and position semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain the required path or timeout parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting the tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the position format (one-based line, zero-based code-point) and configurations default behavior, but it omits any explanation of the required path parameter or the timeout parameter.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe the symbol' at a given position. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling clangd tools like clangd_definition or clangd_references.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the positional input format, 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral default (empty configurations = all), but omits whether the declaration itself is included, timeout semantics, or result limits.

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

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

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ("Empty configurations selects all") but still earns its place as a default-behavior note.

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

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

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation detail on defaults, the description leaves too much undocumented for an agent to call this confidently. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from the parameter gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only glosses 'position' and 'configurations'. The required 'path', plus 'timeout' and 'include_declaration' (which defaults to true and materially changes results), are never explained.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ("Find references to the symbol") with a clear scope anchor ("at the supplied position"). It is distinct from clangd_definition/hover/document_symbols, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to differentiate.

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

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

Only the note that an empty configurations list selects all is offered; there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over clangd_definition or the workspace_* search tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no scope of search, no return shape, no cost/rate behavior. The 'empty configurations' line describes a parameter rather than a trait.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is tersely worded ('Empty configurations selects all') but earns its place by clarifying a default.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero schema-description coverage, no usage guidance, and only one of three parameters clarified, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only that empty configurations selects all, leaving the required 'query' semantics and the 'timeout' parameter undocumented anywhere. That is well short of compensating for a 3-param, zero-coverage schema.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find workspace symbols by name query.' The scope ('workspace symbols' vs the sibling 'document_symbols') is implicit in the name, so an agent can mostly distinguish it, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from clangd_document_symbols.

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

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many clangd_* siblings. The only contextual hint is the configurations behavior, which is a parameter detail, not usage routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare destruction, non-idempotency, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the targets/default semantics but says nothing about build side effects, artifact production, or failure behavior beyond the annotation layer.

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

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

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying target defaulting, though the description is arguably under-specified for a 4-param tool.

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

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive build tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no annotations-level elaboration on side effects, the description is too thin to call it sufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only the targets parameter (omitted vs nonempty), leaving timeout, parallel, and profiles completely undocumented anywhere.

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

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

States a specific verb (build) and resource (selected profiles/build presets), and the phrase 'after configuration' places it relative to cmake_configure and cmake_test. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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

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

The phrase 'after configuration' implies a prerequisite and workflow position, which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to use this over cmake_configure/cmake_test or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that changing a manual profile's generator deletes and recreates the build directory, and that per-execution errors are returned.

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

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

Two tight sentences, with the core purpose and output front-loaded before the caveat about build directory recreation. No filler, though it is terse rather than optimally structured with headings.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. The remaining gaps are the undocumented timeout parameter and the absent usage workflow, which keep it from being fully complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'profiles' is the selection list to configure, but says nothing about the 'timeout' object (idle/total seconds), leaving half the parameters undocumented at the top level.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure selected profiles') and notes the return content (build/database paths and per-execution errors). It clearly sits between cmake_profiles and cmake_build, though it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives cmake_profiles, cmake_build, or cmake_test. The reader can infer that 'selected profiles' must come from cmake_profiles, but nothing states the workflow or prerequisites.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe, non-mutating read, and the description confirms the listing nature by naming the fields returned. It adds little beyond that: no mention of scoping (per-workspace? per-project?), caching, or freshness. With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and returned content with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema documenting the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of any scoping or usage context, which is minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly refrains from inventing parameter behavior.

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

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

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('effective profiles') and enumerates the content surfaced (toolsets, build settings, preset selections), which separates it from siblings like toolsets_list and cmake_configure. It is clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from toolsets_list, which also lists a related CMake concept.

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

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolsets_list or cmake_configure, and no prerequisites or context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/unsafe profile is covered. The description adds workflow context ('after building') but does not disclose anything beyond the annotations such as execution side effects or permission requirements.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter detail. No significant waste, though the parenthetical asides could be tightened.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, a nested ProcessTimeout type, and an output schema. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves three of four parameters (timeout, parallel, profiles) entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap for a moderately complex tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only the 'names' parameter (exact names, not regex; omit for defaults) and leaves 'timeout', 'parallel' and 'profiles' undocumented in both schema and description.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Run CTest ... return test cases') and adds the 'after building' sequencing context. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name cmake_build/cmake_configure as the related siblings.

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

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

'after building' implies the tool should be invoked following a build, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives among the cmake_* siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scope ('current and completed' external processes), which partially duplicates the status enum rather than disclosing new behavior.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though extremely terse.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a trivial overview tool the remaining gaps are the missing sibling routing and status-filter semantics.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single status parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Current and completed' loosely maps to the running/completed enum values but omits the 'all' default and gives no explicit guidance on how the filter behaves.

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

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

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (external processes managed by ForgeMCP) with clear scope (current and completed). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling process_get, which an agent would need to distinguish a list-overview from a single-process lookup.

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

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

No statement of when to use this versus process_get or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the list/overview variant from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses non-obvious behavior: truncation order (time, then lines, then bytes), half-open time ranges versus inclusive line ranges, the running-vs-completed meaning of 'last seconds', and that a byte cap can cut a line. That is substantive context annotations cannot carry, though interaction between simultaneous time and lines selectors is only hinted at.

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

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then defaults, then range semantics, then edge cases — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The opening phrase 'time, then lines, then UTF-8 text bytes' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about the precedence it is describing.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead spends its budget on the genuinely ambiguous parts (defaults, interval inclusivity, byte-budget truncation, absolute line numbering). For a read tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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

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

With measured schema coverage at 0% for top-level properties, the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the units and interval semantics of the time selectors, the inclusivity of line ranges, and the truncation behavior of max_bytes. It adds nothing about process_id beyond the implicit 'process', so it falls short of fully covering every parameter.

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

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

The opening clause 'Read a log slice' gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately bounds it to a single process's log stream, which cleanly separates it from siblings like processes_overview that enumerate processes. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

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

It specifies the default behavior when no selector is given ('return the last 100 lines'), which is real usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over processes_overview or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the selector semantics rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only "querying available versions for this request," which hints at version awareness but is too vague to be actionable.

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

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

A single compact sentence with no filler, which is appropriate in size. The wording is slightly run-on and unclear, but nothing is wasted.

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

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-param fetch. However, the description leaves the required identifier and the relationship to toolsets_list unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent choosing between them.

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

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

The single required parameter toolset_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what a toolset ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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

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

"Read tool paths and kinds" gestures at retrieving information, but the phrasing is ambiguous and never states plainly that this fetches a single toolset by ID. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling toolsets_list, so an agent cannot easily tell the two apart.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus toolsets_list, nor any stated prerequisite. The agent is left to infer that "get" means a single fetch while the sibling "list" means enumeration.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the hint that toolsets are 'discovered' (dynamic), and says nothing about result size, caching, or whether discovery is live; with an output schema present, this is adequate but thin.

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

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

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the returned content. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a simple no-param read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. It could be improved by naming toolset_get as the single-item alternative, but nothing essential is missing.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration.

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

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (toolsets) plus the scope 'all discovered' and the payload ('tools available in each'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling toolset_get, but the plural/aggregate framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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

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

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the singular sibling toolset_get, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration counterpart.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is limited to files and EMPTY directories (implying non-recursive), and protected paths/roots are refused. It does not say what error or response a refused delete produces, holding it below a 5.

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

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the key constraint. Zero waste.

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

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

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to supply the operation's limits, which it does. Minor gaps remain around recursion behavior and failure semantics for a destructive tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description would ideally clarify the 'path' parameter, but it offers no syntax, relative-vs-absolute, or workspace-root semantics. The single parameter is largely self-evident from its name, so this sits at the minimum-viable baseline rather than being actively unhelpful.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or empty directory'), scoping the operation precisely enough to distinguish it from siblings like workspace_mkdir or workspace_move. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the resource+scope is unambiguous.

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

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

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only constraint offered ('protected paths and roots cannot be deleted') is a precondition on the target, not routing advice for choosing this tool over siblings such as workspace_move or workspace_edit_file.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: missing or ambiguous matches leave the file unchanged (safety on failure), and text/line endings outside replacements are preserved (scope of mutation). It stops short of noting permission or concurrency requirements.

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

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

Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the core behavior (one occurrence, or all) is front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds a distinct fact: replacement scope, failure behavior, preservation guarantee.

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

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers mutation scope, failure behavior, and preservation of surrounding content. An agent has what it needs to call this safely; only the sibling-routing and permission story are missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains old_text (must be nonempty) and replace_all (single vs. all occurrences), which are the two parameters whose semantics aren't self-evident. Only path and new_text go unexplained, and both are obvious from their names.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: replace one exact text occurrence, or all occurrences when replace_all=true. This is clearly distinguishable from a full-file write, though it never names workspace_write_file as the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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

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

Usage is implied by 'replace one exact text occurrence' versus replace_all=true, which tells the agent which mode to pick. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over workspace_write_file, nor any exclusions for when editing is inappropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the returned field list but says nothing about error behavior (e.g., non-existent path) or path resolution, so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned fields, zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining gap is only the undocumented path semantics. For a trivial one-parameter stat tool this is essentially complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden — but it only implies a single file path without clarifying whether it is absolute, workspace-relative, or how symlinks/directories are handled. This is the baseline 3 rather than full compensation.

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

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

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (file info) and enumerates the exact fields returned — creation/modification times, byte size, owner — which cleanly separates it from workspace_read_file (contents) and workspace_find_files (search). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Usage is only implied: 'of one file' signals a single-target stat operation, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over workspace_read_file or workspace_list, and no prerequisites. Adequate minimum-viable guidance, no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds operational traits beyond annotations: recursive traversal, case-sensitive matching, and skipping of dot directories and symlinks. These are useful behavioral details.

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

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

Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core function and followed by necessary pattern semantics. No wasted sentences.

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

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

Given a simple two-parameter schema, existing annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers the essential operational details. Only the 'path' parameter's default and role could be made more explicit, a minor gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern semantics ('/'-based basename vs path matching) and implicitly defines the search directory role of 'path'. While the 'path' parameter itself is not explicitly described, the description provides substantial meaning for the pattern parameter.

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

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

States a specific verb (find), resource (file paths), and method (recursive case-sensitive glob). It distinguishes itself from text-search siblings by focusing on path discovery, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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

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

The description provides pattern-matching semantics but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like workspace_list or workspace_text_search. Usage is implied by the glob-based purpose, but tool selection remains unaddressed.

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

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

It discloses notable behaviors beyond the safety annotations, such as 'null depth expands every directory', 'File paths are errors', and that 'dot files remain visible and links are listed without traversal'. These are useful operational details, though it doesn't cover the output format or performance implications.

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

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

The description is two sentences: the first states the core action and a key behavior; the second packs parameter semantics and file handling rules. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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

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

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, hidden-file behavior, and error conditions. It omits potential rate limits or pagination, but given the annotations and output schema, it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters, and it does: 'depth' (null expands all) and 'include_hidden' (controls dot directories) are explained meaningfully, adding semantic value beyond the bare schema types.

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

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

The description says 'Show a directory tree', which is a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't name or distinguish itself from its sibling workspace_find_files, which also deals with files. The purpose is understandable but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workspace_find_files or workspace_file_info. The tool lists directories, but the description offers no conditions or exclusions to help an agent select it over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and non-read-only, and the description reinforces this by disclosing that missing parents are created and an existing directory is reported rather than erroring. It stops short of covering path format, permissions, or error behavior, but the added behavioral context is real.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the idempotency clause second. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a one-parameter tool, the description plus annotations and an existing output schema cover enough to invoke it correctly. The only omission is path-format guidance, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implies the single 'path' argument points at a directory to create. It does not clarify whether the path is workspace-relative or absolute, leaving a genuine gap for the one required parameter.

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

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

States a specific verb (create) and resource (directory), and adds the distinguishing mkdir -p behavior of creating missing parents. No sibling performs directory creation, so the tool is unambiguous among the file/workspace tools listed.

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

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

Usage is only implied: the parent-creation and 'already exists' clauses hint at when this is preferred over manual sequencing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or precondition statement. No alternative sibling exists to route against, which keeps it merely adequate.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the destination is never clobbered (must not exist), the parent must pre-exist, and the operation is confined to project/ or storage/ (no cross-root moves). It stops short of describing failure/reversibility semantics, so a 4.

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

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

Two short sentences: the action and its scope come first, the preconditions second. Nothing is redundant and every clause earns its place.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is path-format semantics for the two parameters, which an agent must still infer.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that destination cannot already exist and that its parent must exist, and implies source may be a file or a directory, which adds meaning over the bare 'source'/'destination' strings. It does not specify the path format expected relative to project/ vs storage/, leaving a real ambiguity.

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

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a file or directory') plus scope ('within project/ or within storage/'), which is enough to separate it from workspace_write_file, workspace_delete, and workspace_mkdir. It does not name a sibling or an alternative operation explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

It states two invocation preconditions ('destination must not exist', 'its parent directory must exist') that tell the agent when the call will succeed, and the scope clause implies moves are confined to a single root. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., workspace_write_file+delete, or a rename), so it is implied rather than explicit usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond annotations: the content is UTF-8 text and line selection is inclusive and one-based. It does not disclose behavior for out-of-range lines, missing files, or encoding errors.

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

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

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read UTF-8 text') before the optional range qualifier. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple read tool, an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation) and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly complete, missing only error/out-of-range behavior for the line-range feature.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain that start_line/end_line form an inclusive, one-based range, which is genuinely additive. However, it omits edge semantics (what happens if only one bound is supplied, or bounds exceed file length), so compensation is partial.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Read UTF-8 text' from a file) and the optional line-range capability. An agent can distinguish it from workspace_write_file/workspace_edit_file, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling for content retrieval (workspace_text_search, workspace_file_info).

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

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

The word 'optionally' hints that the line range is not required, which is the only usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus text search or file info, nor any when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: skipped binary/non-UTF-8 files are reported, counts are exact, and max_matches bounds returned lines rather than scanning. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

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

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

Tight, front-loaded prose with no filler; the core purpose leads and the caveats follow. Dense but each clause (null vs empty list, counts exact, skipped-file resource) carries distinct information.

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

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

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still adds behavior (skipped files, exact counts, linked immutable resource). It is nearly complete for a 6-param read tool; missing only a note on case_sensitive/regex interaction.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It does well for the nuanced ones (extensions: leading dot optional, null = all, empty = none; max_matches limits returned lines, not scanning) but leaves query, path, regex, and case_sensitive undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search lines by literal text or regex.' Clearly a content-search tool, distinguishable from workspace_find_files (by name) and workspace_read_file. Lacks an explicit sibling callout but the purpose reads unambiguously.

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

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

Usage is implied by the operation (search text in a workspace path), but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as workspace_find_files is given. An agent must infer the right situation for content search versus filename search.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the file is UTF-8, existing content is fully replaced, and the parent directory must pre-exist. It doesn't cover encoding failures or permission behavior, so not a 5.

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

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

Two short sentences, with the destructive create/overwrite action front-loaded and the prerequisite attached. The return-value sentence is borderline redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief.

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

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

For a two-parameter write tool with annotations covering the destructive profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the missing pieces: encoding and the parent-directory prerequisite. Remaining gaps (path conventions, overwrite failure modes) are minor.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only that the content is UTF-8 text; neither 'path' (format, relative vs absolute, workspace scoping) nor 'text' semantics are explained.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Create or fully overwrite a UTF-8 file'), and the word 'fully' signals the distinction from the sibling workspace_edit_file. It stops short of naming the alternative, so it isn't a 5.

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

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

Gives a real prerequisite ('its parent directory must exist'), which is useful for correct invocation. But it never says when to choose this over workspace_edit_file or workspace_mkdir, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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