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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., authentication, rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what a 'deploy' entails, the response format, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively in context.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'deployId' documented as 'Deploy ID'. The description adds no parameter details beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. A 4 reflects that the schema adequately handles semantics, though the description doesn't enhance it.

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

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

The description 'Get a specific deploy from Rollbar' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('deploy'), but it's vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch details) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'rollbar_list_deploys' or 'rollbar_get_item'. It's functional but lacks specificity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deploy ID), exclusions, or how it differs from list or other get tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool has 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, for a read operation that likely returns complex error data, the description doesn't explain what information is returned or any behavioral constraints, leaving room for improvement.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' fully documented as 'Item ID'. The description adds that this is 'the internal item ID maintained by Rollbar's system', providing useful context about what type of ID this is. This matches the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'specific item (error) from Rollbar', specifying it uses the internal item ID. It distinguishes from siblings like rollbar_list_items (list vs get) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from rollbar_get_item_by_counter or rollbar_get_item_by_occurrence_uuid which use different identifiers.

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

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

The description implies usage context by specifying 'using the internal item ID maintained by Rollbar's system', suggesting this is for when you have the internal ID rather than other identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like rollbar_get_item_by_counter or rollbar_get_item_by_occurrence_uuid, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the lookup behavior (retrieving an item by counter) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. While it covers the basic operation, it misses important behavioral context for a tool without annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks output schema, so it should ideally hint at the return type or structure. Without annotations, more behavioral details would improve completeness for safe invocation.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'counter' documented as 'Project counter for the item.' The description adds value by clarifying that 'The counter is the visible ID that appears in the Rollbar UI,' providing practical context beyond the schema. This enhances understanding of where to obtain the counter value.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a specific item'), resource ('from Rollbar'), and distinguishing feature ('by project counter'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like 'rollbar_get_item' and 'rollbar_get_item_by_occurrence_uuid' by specifying the counter-based lookup method, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies 'by project counter' and notes that 'The counter is the visible ID that appears in the Rollbar UI,' distinguishing it from other item retrieval methods like by occurrence UUID. This helps the agent choose the correct tool based on the available identifier.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an item but does not describe what an 'item' entails (e.g., error details, metadata), potential errors (e.g., invalid UUID), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a constraint. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's use and prerequisite, with zero waste or redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on what an 'item' contains, error handling, or other behavioral aspects, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Occurrence UUID'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the UUID must be from an occurrence belonging to the item, but does not provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a specific item (error) from Rollbar') and resource ('using an occurrence UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rollbar_get_item (which likely uses a different identifier) and rollbar_get_occurrence (which retrieves occurrences rather than items). It explicitly mentions the UUID must be from an occurrence belonging to the item, adding precision.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when you have an occurrence UUID and need the associated item. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., rollbar_get_item for item IDs), though the sibling tool names imply differentiation. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what error handling occurs, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or response format, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves error data. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Occurrence ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format or source of the ID. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific occurrence of an error from Rollbar'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'rollbar_get_item_by_occurrence_uuid', which might retrieve similar data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollbar_get_item' or 'rollbar_list_occurrences'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an occurrence ID, and does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the project ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

For a read operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the project, what format the response takes, or any limitations of the retrieval. Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more contextual information.

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

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

The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the single 'id' parameter as a Project ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no additional context about parameter usage or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific project from Rollbar'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'rollbar_list_projects' which retrieves multiple projects versus this tool's single-project retrieval, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollbar_list_projects' for listing multiple projects or other 'rollbar_get_*' tools for different resource types. It lacks any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get' but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, returns detailed or summary data, or has any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves user data. It doesn't explain what user information is returned, error conditions, or authentication requirements. While the schema covers the input parameter, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that likely involves sensitive user data.

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

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

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter as 'User ID'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value but doesn't detract either.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific user from Rollbar', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'rollbar_list_users' by specifying retrieval of a single user rather than listing multiple users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'rollbar_get_item' or 'rollbar_get_project' beyond the resource type.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a user ID, when to choose this over 'rollbar_list_users', or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for optimal 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List deploys from Rollbar', which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List deploys from Rollbar'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary details.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving users with insufficient information for effective tool invocation.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'projectId' as required, 'limit' with default). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description 'List deploys from Rollbar' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('deploys from Rollbar'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all deploys vs. filtered) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'rollbar_get_deploy', which might retrieve a single deploy. This makes it vague in differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'rollbar_get_deploy' for single deploys or 'rollbar_list_items' for other resources. Without such information, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('list') without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('List environments from Rollbar'), making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose, earning its place without 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of environment names or objects), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to aid an agent in proper invocation and interpretation of results.

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

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'projectId'. Since the schema fully describes the parameter (type: number, description: Project ID), the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate with additional context, such as how to obtain the project ID or its role in filtering environments.

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 'List environments from Rollbar' clearly states the action (list) and resource (environments from Rollbar), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'environments' means in this context (e.g., development, staging, production) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'rollbar_list_projects' or 'rollbar_list_items', which also list resources. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'rollbar_list_projects' or 'rollbar_list_deploys'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select the correct tool for listing Rollbar environments.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists items, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual details.

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

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

Given the complexity of a listing tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or how to interpret results, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for all 5 parameters (status, level, environment, limit, page). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('items (errors) from Rollbar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'rollbar_list_occurrences' or 'rollbar_list_deploys' beyond specifying 'items (errors)', which provides some distinction but could be more explicit about what makes this listing unique compared to other list tools.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling list tools available (e.g., rollbar_list_occurrences, rollbar_list_deploys), there's no indication of what specific scenarios or data types this tool is intended for, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination details (implied by 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, response format) and usage guidelines, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly in a server with multiple sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (itemId, limit, page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by errors, which is already suggested by the tool name and context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('occurrences of errors from Rollbar'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rollbar_list_items' or 'rollbar_get_occurrence', which list related resources or get a single occurrence, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'rollbar_list_items' (for listing error items) and 'rollbar_get_occurrence' (for a single occurrence), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this list operation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List projects' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes all projects or filtered subsets, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what the list contains (all projects? filtered?), return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets minimum viability.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools. No additional parameter information is required or expected.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('projects from Rollbar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'rollbar_get_project' or other list tools like 'rollbar_list_items', which would require more specific scope information to earn a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollbar_get_project' (for single project details) or other list tools for different resources. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List users from Rollbar' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the user data will be returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - just four words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't bury the key purpose in verbose 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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only basic purpose information, this is incomplete for effective tool use. The agent knows what the tool does but not how it behaves, what it returns, when to use it versus alternatives, or any operational constraints. For even a simple list operation, more context would be helpful for an AI agent.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for regarding 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users from Rollbar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'rollbar_get_user', which appears to retrieve a single user rather than list multiple users. The description is specific about what it does but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'rollbar_list_users' versus 'rollbar_get_user', nor any context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose statement.

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