concert-operate-mcp
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern, making them distinct. However, some tools like get-metering-job, get-metering-job-status, and get-metering-job-result provide overlapping views of the same entity, which could cause confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5The naming convention is strongly consistent, using lowercase verb-noun pairs with hyphens (e.g., create-event, get-alerts, update-policy). Minor deviations like the admin- prefixed tools (admin-get-user-preferences) are systematic and do not undermine overall coherence.
Tool Count1/5With 97 tools, this server is massively over-scoped. It will overwhelm agents with too many options and consume excessive context, making selection and reasoning difficult. The server should be decomposed into smaller, focused servers.
Completeness4/5The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across many modules (alerts, policies, runbooks, training, etc.), with full CRUD where appropriate. Some gaps exist, such as no delete-alert or create/delete-incident, but overall coverage is strong for the apparent domain.
Average 3/5 across 97 of 97 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, asynchronous behavior, required setup, or return format. It only states that a precheck is started.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single brief sentence, which is structurally simple, but it is underspecified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical information that should be present; this is under-description, not efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is part of a precheck lifecycle (with get-precheck-status and stop-precheck siblings), but the description gives no indication of how the run is initiated, what the payload should contain, or how to track progress. With no output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'payload' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its structure or purpose. The schema allows any object, so without text guidance the agent has no idea what to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a precheck run' uses a specific verb and resource, but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It does not clarify what a precheck is or distinguish this from the sibling tools like start-training or get-precheck-status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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, what conditions must be met, or how it relates to other precheck/training tools. The description provides no context for selection versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that the tool updates a training definition, which is already implied by the name, and gives no insight into whether the update is partial or full, idempotent, how it handles non-existent definitions, or any permissions or side effects. This is completely insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single sentence that repeats the tool name, offering no structured information or emphasis on key aspects. The brevity does not serve the agent's understanding; it reflects an absence of meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by providing context about the update operation, the expected input structure, and the result. It fails to address any of this, particularly for a tool with a nested 'updates' object, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (name and updates) with zero description coverage, and the description provides no elaboration on them. 'name' likely identifies the training definition, and 'updates' appears to be an object with arbitrary properties, but the description does not explain their meaning, structure, or allowed values. The agent receives no semantic clarity beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a training definition' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'update-training-definition', providing no additional specificity about what 'update' entails or what fields are affected. It does not distinguish itself from other update tools beyond the resource name, making it minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create-training-definition or delete-training-definition. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the literal 'update.' There is no mention of effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to the automation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is brief but under-specified. It provides no substantive detail beyond the tool name, making it more a tautology than a concise, informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with a flexible 'updates' object and no annotations or output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what can be updated, how to structure the update, or the outcome of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't compensate. It doesn't explain what tool_id represents or what the 'updates' object should contain, leaving both parameters semantically unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'runbook automation tool,' making the basic action clear. However, it's vague and doesn't distinguish this update operation from other update tools in the sibling list; it only adds the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when updating is appropriate, or how it differs from create/delete operations for automation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's name and provides no behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, effects of creation, or validation behavior. This is equivalent to the low-scoring 'Process' example in its lack of informational value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place by adding any actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool's complexity is moderate (creating a definition with a nested arbitrary object), there is no output schema, and no annotations. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what a training definition is, what the request should look like, or what the response will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter 'definition' with 'additionalProperties: {}' and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what a training definition should contain, what fields are required, or how to structure the object. This is a significant gap for an arbitrary object parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new training definition' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (training definition). It is more explicit than a simple tautology and matches the tool name, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create-event or create-policy 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-training-definition or start-training. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the act of updating. It doesn't mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or return behavior, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it's under-specified. While it's concise, it doesn't earn its place by providing necessary detail; it's more of a placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, a flexible updates object, and a vague description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to menu_id or updates. The updates object is entirely opaque with additionalProperties, and the description doesn't hint at valid fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Update' as a specific verb and 'UI menu' as the resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-menu and delete-menu. However, it lacks scope detail, so it's clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool's name ('Delete a runbook') without revealing whether deletion is permanent, cascades to versions, or requires specific permissions. No additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It adds no value beyond the tool name and lacks any structured detail, making it an incomplete description rather than a well-crafted minimal one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema with one parameter and no output schema, but even for a simple delete operation, the description should mention the required identifier or any side effects. It does not, leaving gaps about what happens upon deletion (e.g., success confirmation, irreversibility).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the runbook_id parameter at all. With only one parameter and no explanation in either the schema or description, the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (runbook), which is specific and distinguishes it from other runbook-related tools like delete-runbook-execution. However, it provides no additional context beyond the verb and object, so it does not fully differentiate itself from similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or alternatives such as update-runbook or execute-runbook. There is no explicit context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether this creates a new record, requires specific permissions, how wait_for_commit affects durability, or what happens on duplicate insights.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The sentence is brief and front-loaded with the primary action, containing no unnecessary words. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, sacrificing explanatory value for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (nested object, optional wait_for_commit parameter) and the complete lack of annotations or output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what an insight is, how it relates to comments or other alert data, or the semantics of the wait_for_commit flag, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (alert_id and insight described), but the description adds no parameter semantics. The wait_for_commit parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description, and the description does not clarify the structure or importance of the insight nested object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('Add' + 'insight to an alert'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add-alert-comment, but the resource type (insight vs comment) provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add-alert-comment or get-alert-insights. The description simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Create a new metering job'—a tautology that reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, asynchronous behavior, or post-creation steps. There is no additional context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (six words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It restates the tool's name without adding value. For a creation tool with a complex nested payload, this brevity is not appropriate; it fails to earn its place by providing any useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (a create operation with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what a metering job is, what the payload must contain, how the job behaves after creation, or what response to expect. The agent is left without essential context to invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, but the only parameter ('job') is described as 'Metering job payload,' which is trivially uninformative. The tool description adds no clarification about the payload structure, required fields, or how the parameter should be used. The schema also allows arbitrary additional properties, so the agent gets no meaningful guidance on constructing a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new metering job.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('metering job'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-metering-job, get-metering-job-status, and other create tools (create-event, create-alert). No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools for reading metering jobs (get-metering-job, get-metering-job-status) are not referenced, so the agent receives no context for selecting this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new policy.' with no information about idempotency, conflict behavior, required policy fields, or side effects. This adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (five words) and clear, but it omits essential information. It is concise but under-specified, not fitting the spirit of conciseness where every sentence earns its place; here the single sentence adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool creates a policy within a large API domain with many policy operations. The description provides no explanation of what a policy is, what the policy object must contain, or any constraints. With no output schema and minimal schema description, the description is completely inadequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, 'policy,' has a description ('Policy object.'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning. Per baseline, score 3 when schema covers the parameter descriptions, though the description is very generic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new policy'), making it clear the tool creates a policy. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create-policies-bulk or update-policy, so it 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 create-policies-bulk or update-policy. The description provides no context for selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's purpose and adds nothing about validation, duplicate handling, permissions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse, though it is terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an open-ended 'view' object, the description is insufficient for an agent to make a valid call. It omits the structure of the view object, possible uniqueness checks, and the response format, so external documentation would be needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the lone parameter 'view', and the description does not mention this parameter at all. An agent gets no information about the expected structure of the view object or which fields are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('new UI view'), which distinguishes it from view-related siblings like update-view and delete-view. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other create-* tools, but the resource is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-view or check-view-name-exists. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or process context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Update an existing runbook.' It does not mention partial vs full update semantics, permission requirements, side effects, or return values, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not front-load important context, making it minimally acceptable but not well-rounded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 inadequate. It does not explain how the updates object should be formatted or what the response will be, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to explain the two required parameters, especially the 'updates' object which has additionalProperties and no defined structure. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing runbook, using the verb 'Update' and resource 'runbook'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create-runbook, though it doesn't elaborate on what aspects can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-runbook or delete-runbook. There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios for updating a runbook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a UI view' without revealing any side effects, permissions required, idempotency, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, this level of brevity sacrifices necessary information, making it less useful than a slightly longer description that could explain parameter semantics or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (an update operation with an arbitrary updates object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or complete, or how the view_id and updates parameters relate. The minimal description leaves too much to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of view_id or the updates object. 'Update a UI view' in no way clarifies that view_id is the identifier of the view to modify or that updates is a dictionary of properties to change. The agent is left with no parameter guidance beyond bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a UI view' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (UI view), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-view, delete-view, and get-view. However, it lacks additional scope or context that would elevate it to a 5, such as what specific aspects of the view can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create-view for new views or get-view for retrieval. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate. It is a bare statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', which implies a destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, side effects on related data, or return behavior. This is a minimal disclosure, akin to the 'Update shared drive settings' example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it might be too terse for the information it needs to convey.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'runbook execution record' is, what happens upon deletion, how to confirm success, or what errors might occur. This is inadequate for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information. The two parameters (runbook_id, instance_id) are left unexplained, so the agent must guess their meaning and format. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('runbook execution record'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete-runbook (which deletes a runbook) and update-runbook-execution, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of contexts or exclusions, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, ability/idempotency concerns, or return values. This leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently written, but it may be too sparse to be considered fully well-rounded. It earns its place by stating the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent has no information about the structure or required fields of the 'menu' object, nor what the response will look like. The context is too minimal for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide any explanation of the 'menu' parameter. The input schema only defines it as an object with additionalProperties allowed, offering no structure or examples. The description adds no value in clarifying what the menu object should contain, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'UI menu', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update-menu, delete-menu, and get-menu. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it lacks additional scope or detail about what kind of UI menu or its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but no cross-references are provided, leaving the agent without direction on contextual selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what it returns, or error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found). The description essentially restates the tool name, adding no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single direct sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it adds little beyond the tool name. The structure is front-loaded and efficient, but the content is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description should clarify what is returned and any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess about response format or behavior. The sibling context (many get-* tools) implies a standard pattern, but the description does not confirm it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows a single required parameter 'menu_id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific UI menu'), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-menus' which retrieves multiple menus. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly mention the menu_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'get-menus' for listing all menus or any exclusions or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieve action and offers no details about response format, whether it returns a single status or a list, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation that might have nuances like historical data or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence that is easy to parse. However, it adds minimal value over the tool name and is too terse to be considered well-structured; it barely earns its place by expanding 'get' to 'retrieve' but lacks any supporting detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'execution status' means, what data will be returned, or any related concepts like runbooks or policy versions. The absence of an output schema makes this minimal description insufficient for an agent to understand expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (policy_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'a policy' but does not clarify what constitutes a policy ID, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('execution status for a policy'), which is a specific verb+object pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get-policy or get-runbook-execution, so it 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description gives no context about typical use cases, preprocessing, or conditions that would favor this tool over sibling read operations such as get-policy or get-runbook-execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update', but doesn't clarify whether it's a partial or full update, what happens to unspecified fields, side effects, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action verb. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, so while structurally concise, it could carry more useful info without sacrificing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (nested object, mutation) and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a visualization filter is, what can be updated, or how the response appears. Sibling tools like get-viz-filter exist, but the description alone doesn't enable confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'updates' object is left completely opaque with additionalProperties allowed but no field keys or value types explained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a visualization filter.' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-viz-filter and delete-viz-filter. However, it lacks any additional specifics about scope or object type, so it's clear but not enriched beyond the minimal definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-viz-filter or delete-viz-filter. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('retrieve') but does not disclose authorization requirements, error behavior, data format, or any other operational traits. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and efficient, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is appropriate for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain return values, error cases, or the difference from similar admin preference tools (e.g., singular vs plural). The context is incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter, user_id, with no description. The tool description adds 'for a specific user', which merely echoes the parameter name and does not clarify expected format (e.g., UUID, email) or additional semantics. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('retrieve'), resource ('preferences'), and scope ('for a specific user'), distinguishing it from tools like get-my-preferences. However, it does not differentiate between this and the similarly named admin-get-user-preference (singular vs plural), so it loses a point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as admin-get-all-preferences or admin-get-user-preference. The usage context is only implied by the description's mention of 'specific user', with no explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It doesn't clarify whether the tool returns a boolean, errors on non-existence, is case-sensitive, or how the 'type' parameter influences behavior. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids irrelevant details. While it could be slightly more informative, it is not verbose or repetitive, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It omits critical context such as return value format, error behavior, and the effect of the optional 'type' parameter. An agent would likely need to infer or test these aspects, which is not ideal for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters (only 'type' has a description, 'View type qualifier'). The description adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by linking it to the 'view name' in the tool's purpose, but it doesn't explain how 'type' is used in the existence check. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves key semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Check whether') on a specific resource ('a view name exists'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-view (fetches a view) and create-view (creates a view), by focusing solely on existence checking. However, it doesn't specify the output or edge cases, so it's clear but not fully comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'before creating a view to ensure uniqueness' or how it differs from get-view or check-viz-filter-name-exists. The description implies a simple existence check but offers no contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it checks existence, but does not specify return format, case sensitivity, scope, or behavior for existing vs non-existing names, leaving the agent to guess the outcome.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler words. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word contributes to the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple tool, the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations means the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, parameter meanings, or usage context, so an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this text alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the two parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' or the optional 'type' represents, leaving the agent without sufficient information to correctly populate them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('check') and the resource ('visualization filter name'), making its purpose unambiguous. Although it overlaps in function with sibling check-view-name-exists, it names the specific resource type, which differentiates it enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-viz-filters or check-view-name-exists. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the create action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. For a mutation operation, this is a significant lack of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose, though it is quite terse. No excessive length, but it could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to construct a valid 'tool' object or understand the expected behavior. This is a borderline inadequate description for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter 'tool' which is a free-form object. The description adds minimal meaning by implying the object represents the automation tool, but it does not explain any structure, required fields, or examples, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('runbook automation tool'), which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like get/update/delete-automation-tool, but does not elaborate on what an automation tool is or how it differs from a runbook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the context of runbook automation tools or contrast with create-runbook or other create-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a filter is created, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, duplicate handling, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable context. It is not overly verbose, but the extreme brevity limits its usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a create tool with one arbitrary object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a visualization filter is, define the structure of the filter object, mention return values, errors, or any operational context. The agent cannot invoke this tool correctly with current information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'filter' of type object with additionalProperties: {}, meaning it accepts any properties. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what the filter object should contain, what fields are expected, or provide any structure. The agent is left without guidance on how to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new visualization filter' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (visualization filter). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like update-viz-filter, delete-viz-filter, and get-viz-filter by using 'new' to indicate creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, related tools, or exclusions. It merely labels the operation without helping the agent decide between this and sibling create tools like create-view or create-policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral aspects like permanence, side effects, or permissions. The one-line description does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, cascades to related entities, or requires special authorization, leaving significant ambiguity for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is well-structured and front-loaded, it is arguably too brief to be fully self-sufficient, but as a structural matter it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a destructive delete operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial details such as irreversibility, effects on related menus, and any required permissions, making it insufficient for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists a single required parameter 'menu_id' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description fails to compensate by explaining what this ID refers to, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, so the agent must rely solely on the parameter name for inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a UI menu'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools beyond the name, but the verb+resource combination distinguishes it from create/update/get menu operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when deletion might be inappropriate. The description provides no contextual direction for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it merely restates the operation without explaining side effects, permanence, permissions, or whether the version is soft-deleted. It offers no value beyond the tool name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word conveys meaning, and it is efficiently structured for a simple operation, even though the content is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits critical context for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or prerequisites. This is inadequate for confident use without external information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (version_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no help in understanding what version_id refers to or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the target (trained model version), using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on other entities (e.g., delete-policy, delete-runbook).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, any prerequisites, or alternatives. The description does not mention potential consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on dependent resources) or why one would choose this over other delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only states 'Delete a visualization filter.' It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether dependencies are affected, or any required permissions. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter. The description is too brief to provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently invoke it, especially with no explanation of the parameter or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning or format of 'filter_id', and the input schema only provides its type. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'visualization filter', which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete-viz-filters-bulk' or mention it deletes a single filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-viz-filters-bulk' or 'update-viz-filter'. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get complete information' without revealing whether it is read-only, what response format to expect, or any side effects/requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a get operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is structurally minimal but fails to convey essential information, making it borderline between efficient and insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'complete information' includes, any pagination, or error behavior. It does none of these. The tool's simplicity (one param) lowers the bar, but the description is still too thin to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (job_id) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent must rely solely on the parameter name, which is somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no value in clarifying the parameter's meaning, format, or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('complete information for a metering job'), and the word 'complete' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-metering-job-status and get-metering-job-result, which focus on specific aspects. This is a specific and helpful purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 that this is the full-detail counterpart to status/result tools, nor does it offer any exclusions or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether the metering job must be completed, any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the scope restriction 'only for a metering job,' which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The word 'only' adds meaningful scope. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices potentially important context, though the dimension rewards conciseness and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the result contains, when the result becomes available, how it relates to job status, or what an agent should do with the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single required parameter job_id with type string and no schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain the format or semantics of job_id beyond implying it identifies a metering job. There is no guidance on how to obtain job_id or any constraints (e.g., UUID format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get job result only for a metering job' clearly states the action (get) and the target (job result), with a scope restriction to metering jobs. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get-metering-job (which likely retrieves the job itself) and get-metering-job-status (which likely retrieves status). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternative tools such as get-metering-job-status or get-metering-job. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit when-then or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all policies,' which does not reveal whether the operation is safe/read-only, whether it requires special permissions, whether results are paginated, or what fields are returned. This lack of behavioral disclosure is significant for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief—a single sentence—but this is not effective conciseness; it is under-specification. It fails to include essential context such as response format or behavioral notes, making the description unhelpful despite being short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no required parameters, no output schema, and numerous related siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not mention potential pagination, sorting, or the structure of 'all policies,' leaving the agent without enough information for reliable invocation and result handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the sole parameter 'fields' as 'Comma-separated fields to return,' providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all policies.' clearly identifies the verb (List) and resource (policies), and the word 'all' suggests a collection operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get-policy' by implying a plural retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-policy' or 'create-policy'. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a bulk listing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explain the return format, potential errors, pagination, or side effects. The single sentence provides minimal insight into behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it could provide more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation, the description is minimal but lacks context about what 'references' refers to, the expected response structure (no output schema), and when to use this tool relative to other runbook tools. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (runbook_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only implies that runbook_id identifies the runbook, but does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or its role in fetching references. This fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'references for a runbook,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbook or get-runbook-versions. However, it does not clarify what 'references' means, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as needing a runbook ID from get-runbooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention return format, error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, but is notably terse and could have included more useful details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with one parameter, the description is technically adequate for basic understanding, but it lacks essential context such as what the response contains, what happens if the view is not found, and how view_id is structured. Given the minimal schema and no output schema, the description should have provided more helpful details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the meaning or format of view_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra context about allowed values, pattern, or usage, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific UI view' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('UI view'), and the word 'specific' signals it fetches a single view rather than a collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-views, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get-views, or when it should be preferred over other view operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'update specific fields' but does not clarify whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what the return value looks like, or any side effects or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence 'Update specific fields of an incident.' is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundant information, though it is perhaps too sparse to be maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer expected return values, error conditions, or the exact behavior of wait_for_commit, leaving significant gaps for a simple update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only the 'updates' field has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining 'incident_id' or 'wait_for_commit', nor does it elaborate on the structure or allowed fields for the updates object beyond the schema's own brief description. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an incident, with 'specific fields' implying a partial update rather than a full replacement. It distinguishes from siblings like update-alert by explicitly naming the resource (incident), though it does not elaborate on what specific fields can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., incident must exist), and no exclusions or use-case examples. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the upsert behavior implied by the name, without disclosing whether existing values are overwritten, permission requirements, or what happens if 'value' is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information and does not earn its place as a sufficient explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about admin privileges, idempotency, and typical usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'key', 'value', or 'user_id'. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics or usage details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create or update) and the resource (a preference for a specific user). The 'Admin:' prefix and 'specific user' distinguish it from self-service preference tools like upsert-my-preference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like admin-get-user-preference or admin-delete-user-preference. The 'Admin:' prefix hints at the intended audience but does not explain the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a new alert is created, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, return values, required permissions, or behavior of the wait_for_commit parameter. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it borders on tautology, essentially restating the tool name, and lacks substantive content to earn a higher score. It is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested alert object, wait_for_commit flag, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about return values, error behavior, parameter interactions, or practical usage context, making it nearly useless for an agent considering invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description text adds no parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema. The alert property's required fields are mentioned in the schema, but wait_for_commit is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create') and resource ('an alert') with product context ('in Concert Operate'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-event and create-alert-insight, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., bulk-update-alerts, create-event). It lacks any contextual cues, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Delete' which implies destructiveness, but it does not mention consequences (e.g., impact on dependencies, irreversibility, expected output, or error behavior). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; it earns its place, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral transparency, which are especially important given no annotations or output schema. While the tool is straightforward, the description does not fully enable correct invocation and expectation management.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'tool_id' parameter. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, and with only one parameter, the meaning is partially inferred. Still, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail by not specifying format or purpose beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (runbook automation tool), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD operations. It adds specificity with 'runbook' that the name alone doesn't fully convey, though it's still closely tied to the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or whether deletion is reversible. The only implied usage context is that it deletes a resource, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a retrieval action and gives no details about return format, error handling, or required permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks context about what an 'automation tool' is or what the response will contain. The agent is left without expectation of the return value or any edge-case behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter tool_id with no description. The description says 'specific' but does not explain the parameter's format or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (a specific runbook automation tool), which distinguishes it from the plural sibling get-automation-tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool is identified by an ID (tool_id), which would make it even clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the plural listing tool or any related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It does not mention read-only semantics, the nature of the statistics (e.g., counts, averages), potential costs, or any other behavior beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clearly structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes meaning, though it is somewhat minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what constitutes 'statistics', whether these differ from executions, or how to use the returned data, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes one parameter, runbook_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter, nor does it add any context about its format, source, or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('execution statistics') and scope ('for a runbook'), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get-runbook-executions, which might also return execution data, though 'statistics' implies aggregated metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-runbook-executions or get-runbook-execution. There are no examples, exclusions, or conditions for use, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and filtering, and implicitly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't describe response format, edge cases, rate limits, or what fields are returned. The sparse detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core action and key features. No fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple (3 optional params, no output schema), but the description fails to explain what 'metering resources' are, what the response looks like, or how pagination/filtering behave in practice. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke with full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 loosely aligns 'pagination' with page/page_size and 'filtering' with filter, but provides no specifics on formats, types (or that they are strings), or how to construct filter strings. The added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (metering resources), and mentions pagination and filtering. However, it doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'metering resource' nor explicitly differentiate from sibling metering tools like create-metering-job or get-metering-job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the listing counterpart to metering job tools or provide exclusion criteria. The description only hints at functionality, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action, but does not disclose what happens upon creation, required fields, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the response contains. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name, offering zero transparency into side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it does not contain filler or irrelevant content. It earns its place as a statement of purpose, but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool creates a runbook, which is likely a complex object given the schema has an unconstrained object parameter. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what constitutes a valid runbook or what the response will be. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'runbook' with a description 'Runbook object.' and allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's description is itself minimally informative, but the description does not contradict or expand upon it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new runbook.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action on the runbook entity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-runbook, delete-runbook, and execute-runbook, which perform different operations. There is no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 that this is for creating new runbooks while update-runbook is for modifying existing ones, nor does it reference related tools. The usage context is only implied by the word 'create' and the resource name, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, cascades to associated resources, or requires specific permissions. The agent is left unaware of potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word sentence with no extraneous words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource directly without any wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks warnings about irreversibility, relationships to other training definition tools, and parameter handling, leaving important operational context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter—its role as an identifier, format, or required value. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's field name, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('training definition'), directly stating the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, and get training definitions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, preconditions (e.g., verifying the definition exists), or alternatives. It is a bare statement of the action without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fire-and-forget vs synchronous modes, which is some behavioral context, but it does not reveal side effects (e.g., creating an execution record, triggering actions), permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for an execution/mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the key mode distinction. However, it is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, so it does not earn a perfect conciseness score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage. The description lacks any mention of return values, side effects, prerequisites, or how the sync/async modes affect the response. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers runbook_id (no description) and execution (generic 'payload...' description), giving 50% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain what the execution object should contain or how runbook_id relates to the runbook resource, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a runbook, using a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical '(fire-and-forget or synchronous)' adds execution modes, distinguishing it from runbook management siblings like get-runbook-executions or update-runbook-execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 prerequisites or exclusions. The sync/async choice is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving the agent without information on selecting the appropriate mode or when to prefer other runbook operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose what is returned, error behavior, or any prerequisites. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence and is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it borders on being too terse to convey useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an insight is, what the response contains, or how the parameters interact. The tool is moderately complex (3 required params) but the description gives no guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'insight ID and type' but does not explain the relationship between alert_id, insight_id, and insight_type or provide additional context beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (a specific insight on an alert), and the identifying parameters (insight ID and type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-alert-insights by using 'specific,' implying a single insight rather than a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-alert-insights or create-alert-insight. The description doesn't mention listing all insights or any conditions that would favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Get job status'. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., status string, metadata), whether the job must exist, permission requirements, or potential errors. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and subject, making it easy to parse quickly while still conveying the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits what job_id refers to and what 'status' entails (e.g., possible values). Additional context about the expected input and result would be necessary for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (job_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition, failing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('job status'), and scope ('metering job') with the qualifier 'only', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-metering-job and get-metering-job-result. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-metering-job or get-metering-job-result. The phrase 'only for a metering job' scopes the input but does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and return values. It only states a high-level action without noting that this is a write operation, potential idempotency, or failure behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'Register a new algorithm with the AI platform,' with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a registration tool with one nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the structure of the 'algorithm' payload, behavior on duplicate registration, or success/error responses, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with the description 'Algorithm registration payload,' but this is generic and tautological. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric, though the parameter would benefit from field-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('algorithm'), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'unregister-algorithm' by opposite semantics, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other creation tools like 'create-training-definition'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the algorithm object must adhere to a specific format or if registration requires prior approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, required permissions, or how it interacts with other training resources. The statement is purely functional with no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing context; it is appropriately structured but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely orchestrates a complex process (starting a training run) with a free-form payload, the description is highly incomplete. It omits the relationship to training definitions, precheck requirements, and expected outcome, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'payload' parameter, which already has a description ('Training run configuration'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the payload's structure entirely unspecified beyond the generic schema text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a training run' uses the specific verb 'start' and identifies the resource 'training run', making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'start-precheck' or relate it to 'create-training-definition', leaving potential ambiguity about what a 'training run' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as prerequisites (e.g., an existing training definition or precheck status), or when to prefer alternatives like 'start-precheck'. The description only states the action without any context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether unregistering is destructive, reversible, requires special permissions, or what happens if the algorithm does not exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, the description is too terse. It does not explain the outcome of unregistering, potential side effects, error conditions, or the response format. Given no annotations or output schema, the description leaves too much to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one string parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'by name' only minimally indicates that the algorithm is identified by its name, but it does not add useful details about constraints, uniqueness, or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Unregister' and resource 'algorithm' clearly state the action, and 'by name' specifies the identification method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register-algorithm and get-algorithm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the unregistration process. It merely states the action without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says what the tool does but provides no details about side effects, required permissions, state restrictions, partial vs full updates, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it is under-specifying, which is captured in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (one an unbounded object), no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what 'details' means, what status values are valid, or any behavior around updates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The agent is left to infer the meanings of runbook_id, instance_id, and the updates object solely from their names, with no guidance on the allowed shape of the `updates` object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('runbook execution'), and further specifies what can be updated ('status or details'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbook-execution or delete-runbook-execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to change the status or details of a runbook execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints like execution state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is admin-scoped and 'retrieve' implies a read-only action, but it omits details about potential large data volume, pagination, or whether it returns all preferences across all users. No rate limits or side effects are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, 'Admin: retrieve all user preferences.' with no extraneous words or repetition. It is entirely front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source of information. It fails to clarify what 'all user preferences' encompasses (e.g., all users vs. one user) and does not describe the response structure, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which per the rubric receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information because the schema is already complete with an empty properties object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('all user preferences'), with an 'Admin:' prefix indicating administrative scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'admin-get-user-preferences', leaving minor ambiguity about whether 'all' means all users' preferences or all preferences for a single user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'admin-get-user-preferences' or 'get-my-preferences'. The 'Admin:' prefix hints at an administrative context but does not explain the appropriate use case or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it creates an event. It does not describe validation, idempotency, failure behavior, or the role of wait_for_commit, leaving the agent without important execution context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema is moderately rich and covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimal and relies entirely on the schema; it provides enough to attempt invocation, but lacks return-value behavior and context about what 'event' means in this system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the event payload and wait_for_commit. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but per the rubric the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource ('Create a new event') and specifies the product context ('in Concert Operate'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-alert by naming 'event', but offers no further scope or behavioral details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use create-event versus alternative tools such as create-alert or create-policy. The description only states the action; it does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a mutating operation, it does not specify whether deletion is permanent, if it cascades to related resources, or if any special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks critical context. It does not explain return behavior, side effects, or restrictions, which is especially important for a delete operation with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by ID', which reinforces that policy_id is the identifier, but adds no detail about format, constraints, or behavior. The parameter name alone already conveys this, so the description provides minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Delete'), a resource ('a policy'), and an identifier ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-policy, update-policy, and replace-policy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description implies its use case (deleting a policy) but provides no situational context or warnings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' but does not indicate that the operation is permanent, whether it has dependencies, cascading effects, or requires specific permissions. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple delete operation, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not mention consequences, return behavior, or when deletion is allowed. It lacks the contextual richness needed for an agent to use it safely, but it is minimally adequate for a straightforward delete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only 'view_id' as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter. However, the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description itself adds no semantics or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a UI view' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names the resource ('UI view'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create-view, update-view, and get-view. It unambiguously states the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare with other delete tools or view-related tools. The usage is only implied by the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the resource and scope, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter GET tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks context about what 'aggregate resource stats' specifically returns. Without an output schema, the agent is left with no indication of the response structure or what kind of aggregates are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions for start_date and end_date. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the date-range context already implied by the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (aggregate resource stats), and the scope (date range). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling metering tools like get-metering-job-result or list-metering-resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 instead of alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The description simply states the function, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', implying a read operation, but fails to mention ordering, pagination, permissions, or whether the timeline includes all entries. The behavioral profile is largely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what timeline entries contain, their order, or other return details. It only offers a high-level statement, leaving an agent without enough context for reliable use beyond the simplest cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain policy_id format, how to obtain valid values, or any constraints beyond the schema's type and required flag. The phrase 'for a policy' adds minimal meaning over the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource 'timeline entries for a policy'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-alert-timeline and get-incident-timeline by naming the policy object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-alert-timeline or get-incident-timeline. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains (e.g., array of versions, metadata), how versions are ordered, or any potential limitations. The word 'Get' implies retrieval but leaves much undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Get all versions of a runbook,' containing no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource effectively, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely bare. It does not explain what a version consists of, whether an empty list is possible, or how it relates to get-runbook-version. For an AI agent, this is the minimum viable description but lacks sufficient context to ensure correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It refers to 'a runbook' but does not explain what runbook_id is, its format, or any additional meaning. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all versions of a runbook.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all versions of a runbook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-runbook-version (which likely gets a single version) and get-runbook (which gets a runbook itself).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-runbook-version or get-runbook. It does not mention version history, ordering, or any context that would help an agent decide between version-related endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not mention return format, error handling, permissions, or any operational details. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent with little insight into 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, clearly earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low-complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description does not mention what the response will contain or any edge cases (e.g., missing IDs). It is minimally acceptable for a simple retrieval but could be more complete by indicating return value details or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single string parameter 'version_id' with no description. The tool description adds that it targets a 'specific trained model version', providing some context that the ID refers to a model version. However, it does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or any validation constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('specific trained model version'), making the purpose evident. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'get-trained-model-versions' via the word 'specific', but it does not explicitly reference the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-trained-model-versions' or other get tools. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a specific visualization filter' and does not describe potential outcomes (e.g., what happens if the filter is not found), return format, or permission requirements. This is a minimal description that fails to disclose behavior beyond the obvious read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID operation, earning its place without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or behavioral details to be complete. It does not. The tool appears simple, but the description leaves out essential context such as what a 'visualization filter' is, what the response contains, or error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for filter_id, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what a filter_id is, where to find it, or any format expectations. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's basic field name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific visualization filter'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-viz-filters (plural). The word 'specific' signals that this is a single-item retrieval, which aligns with the required filter_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-viz-filters, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., having a filter ID). It merely states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only implies admin privileges and a read-only retrieve, but doesn't describe return values, not-found behavior, or error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that contains all essential information with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about return values, permissions, and edge cases that would be needed for complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning by mapping 'key' and 'user' to the parameters, but provides no details on formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('retrieve'), the resource ('specific preference'), and the scope ('by key for a user'), distinguishing it from the plural sibling admin-get-user-preferences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get-my-preferences or admin-get-user-preferences. The context is only implied by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action ('delete multiple filters') without mentioning irreversibility, partial-failure handling, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple bulk-delete tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, but the description is still under-specified. It does not mention return values, max batch size, error behavior (e.g., rollback vs. skip), or any prerequisites. More context is needed for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'filter_ids' has a clear description: 'Array of filter IDs to delete.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema already fully documents it, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('delete') with a clear resource ('visualization filters') and explicitly notes the bulk scope ('multiple'). This distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'delete-viz-filter' (singular), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the singular 'delete-viz-filter' or other bulk operations. The name 'bulk' hints at the context, but the description does not explain when this tool is preferred or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all executions' implies a read operation but does not disclose pagination, ordering, return format, or whether the result is a list or summary. The agent knows it is a getter but lacks detail about side effects or data shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of sibling tools like get-runbook-execution, update-runbook-execution, and delete-runbook-execution, the description lacks guidance on relationship to those tools. It also does not explain what an 'execution' is, how many results to expect, or whether pagination exists. With no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines runbook_id as a string, and the description mentions 'for a runbook', which connects the parameter to the resource. However, it adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. With a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get all'), the resource ('executions'), and the scope ('for a runbook'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-runbook-execution, which retrieves a single execution. The verb + resource + scope are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that get-runbook-execution should be used for single execution retrieval, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without addressing error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. While it is a read operation, no additional context is supplied beyond the basic 'Get' verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, with no unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with two required parameters, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'version' refers to, the return value, or how to differentiate among version-related tools. Given the lack of an output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with only 'version' having a vague description ('Version identifier') and 'runbook_id' having none. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings, relationships, or expected formats, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific version of a runbook' clearly states the action (get), the resource (a specific version of a runbook), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbook (whole runbook) and get-runbook-versions (list all versions). The specificity of 'a specific version' prevents confusion with plural versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-runbook (current runbook) or get-runbook-versions (listing versions). It does not mention exclusion criteria or provide context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Restore from a backup' implies overwriting the current configuration, but this is not explicitly disclosed. No mention of side effects, destructive potential, safety, or return value. The description is too minimal to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Despite being short, it is appropriately concise for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (one param) and no output schema, the description is not fully complete. It omits important context such as whether the restore overwrites existing settings, requires prerequisites like a valid backup, or returns a confirmation. No annotations compensate. The description is minimally viable but lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a 100% description coverage for the 'config' parameter ('Configuration object from a previous backup'). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Restore' with a clear resource 'topology UI configuration' and source 'from a backup'. It clearly states what the tool does and, while not naming the sibling, is unambiguously distinct from the backup operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior backup), or alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the inverse of backup-topology-ui-config or suggest any when/why context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the upsert nature ('Create or update') but does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, required authentication, or side effects. This is comparable to the update_drive example in the calibration, which scored 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what constitutes a valid preference, whether keys are predefined, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but they are minimal ('Preference key.' and 'Preference value.'). The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. However, the value parameter's lack of type is not addressed by either the schema or the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('preference for the current user'), distinguishing it from siblings like get-my-preferences and delete-my-preference, as well as admin variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for setting one's own preferences, nor does it point to admin-upsert-user-preference for managing other users' preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that it deletes all preferences, which indicates destructiveness, but it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a destructive admin tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that starts with the key role indicator and states the action and scope. It is front-loaded, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context about what happens on success, whether the action is reversible, and any prerequisites. The current description is too sparse for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only mentions a 'specific user' but does not explain the format or meaning of user_id beyond that. The description adds minimal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('all preferences'), and the target (a specific user). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like admin-delete-user-preference by indicating the scope is 'all' preferences and is admin-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case for deleting all user preferences, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives (e.g., admin-delete-user-preference) or provide any exclusion criteria. The 'Admin:' prefix suggests it is for privileged operations, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action, but does not mention permanence, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to related data. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It perfectly fronts the core function of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still insufficient. With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the meaning of insight_type, the deletion behavior, and the expected response. It does none of these.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify the parameters. It mentions 'alert' and 'insight', which maps to alert_id and insight_id, but insight_type is completely unexplained, and no types or constraints are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the specific resource (a specific insight from an alert). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create-alert-insight and get-alert-insight by focusing on deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to delete an insight from an alert. However, it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives, so guidance is not fully developed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and says 'all' entries, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, error conditions, permissions, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, directly stating the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter, this captures the core action, but there is no output schema and no details about the returned timeline entries, ordering, or limitations, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, alert_id, is already fully described in the schema ('The unique identifier of the alert'), so the description adds little beyond aligning with that. Baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all timeline entries for an alert'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling timeline tools for incidents and policies, as well as alert detail/insights tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor any exclusions or related tool references. It simply restates the resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the algorithm is not found, or any error/response details. The word 'Get' implies a read, but that is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it appropriately concise for such a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally viable but lacks context such as return format, error behavior, or usage nuance. It does not go beyond the bare statement of function, so it is complete enough for a trivial getter but not richly informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'name' parameter described as 'Algorithm name.' The description's phrase 'by name' simply restates the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds no extra semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific algorithm by name' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific algorithm'), and the qualifier 'by name' clarifies the lookup mechanism. It is distinguishable from the plural sibling 'get-algorithms' by implication, but it does not explicitly name the alternative for listing all algorithms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific algorithm name, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-algorithms'. It lacks any when-not or alternative tool mentions, so usage context is only minimally implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the core function and does not mention what happens if the runbook ID does not exist, whether the operation is read-only, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent uninformed about behavioral outcomes beyond the happy path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needn't be lengthy. However, the description lacks any mention of return value behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. While adequate for a basic get-by-ID operation, it leaves some gaps that are not compensated by annotations or schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (runbook_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's "by ID" clarifies that runbook_id refers to the runbook's unique identifier, adding meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify the expected format, length, or any constraints beyond the type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Get a runbook by ID" clearly states the verb (Get), resource (runbook), and specific scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbooks (list) and update-runbook/delete-runbook, as it targets a single runbook retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get-runbooks should be used for listing all runbooks, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or complementary tools. The only implied usage is when a runbook ID is known, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns, possible errors, or any permissions required. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise and to the point, which is appropriate for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what a 'runbook execution' object contains or what the response looks like. While the tool is simple, the description leaves important context gaps, especially for an agent that needs to use the returned data correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only mentions 'instance ID' as the identifier. The runbook_id parameter is not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess its role. The description adds partial meaning but does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a specific runbook execution, with the qualifier 'specific' and 'by instance ID'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-runbook-executions, which presumably lists executions. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'specific' implies this is for retrieving a single execution rather than listing all, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get-runbook-executions or explain when to use this tool vs. others. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, placing the full burden on the description. However, the description only restates the action without disclosing behavior such as return format, error handling if not found, or authorization requirements. This is a minimal descriptor that adds no behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, front-loaded and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and any edge cases. It doesn't, leaving the agent without adequate information for a complete understanding. The simple nature of the tool slightly mitigates this, but the omission is notable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'name' with zero description coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'by name', which merely repeats the parameter's existing name and doesn't provide format, validation, or usage details. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with resource 'training definition' and specifies 'by name', clearly distinguishing it from the plural list tool get-training-definitions. It tells the agent exactly what action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is given. The description only implies that this tool is for retrieving a single definition by name, with no mention of when to prefer it over get-training-definitions or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that the operation is a partial update via PATCH, but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, scope, resource, and HTTP method are all present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an underdocumented payload parameter. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about prerequisites, response behavior, or when to choose this over replace-policy. Contextual completeness is inadequate for a 2-parameter resource update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful explanation of the parameters. 'by ID' hints at policy_id, but the 'updates' parameter—the core payload—is entirely unexplained beyond the raw schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (partially update), target resource (policy), and identification method (by ID). The PATCH method and 'Partially' distinguish it from replace-policy, which presumably does a full replacement, and from create/delete operations. This fully specifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'Partially' and '(PATCH)' imply this should be used when a partial update is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The description leaves the agent to infer the distinction from sibling tool names like replace-policy and create-policy, without explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'backup' without explaining what that entails: whether it creates a snapshot, overwrites previous backups, requires existing configuration, or returns any confirmation. The operational behavior is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description still omits essential context: what backup means, where the backup is stored, how to verify success, or whether the operation is reversible. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description has no parameter information to add. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Backup' and names the resource 'topology UI configuration', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'restore-topology-ui-config'. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it should be invoked (e.g., before updates), or any exclusions. The name implies a backup operation but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and bulk nature but omits critical traits such as atomicity, partial-failure handling, request size limits, or whether an output of created policies is returned. This is a significant gap for a bulk mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is maximally concise. No redundant words, and the intent is clear in eight simple words. This is an example of efficient structuring.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is far too thin for a bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks essential operational context: request limits, behavior on partial validation failure, whether the operation is atomic, and how it relates to the singular create-policy. An agent is left guessing about critical constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for the sole parameter ('Array of policy objects'), giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name, and neither the schema nor the description clarifies the policy object structure or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear action ('Create') and a distinct resource ('multiple policies') with a qualifier ('in a single request'). This sharply differentiates it from the singular create-policy sibling tool, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a batch use case ('create multiple policies'), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over create-policy, nor does it rule out alternatives. No exclusions or comparator guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only restates what the tool does without disclosing behaviors like ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or response format. Minimal information beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any detail about what timeline entries contain or any edge cases, so it could be more complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 adds 'for an incident,' but does not elaborate on the incident_id parameter's format, constraints, or meaning beyond what the parameter name itself implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'all timeline entries for an incident.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-alert-timeline and get-policy-timeline by specifying 'incident.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need incident timeline entries, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple getter, the context is clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'update specific fields' without revealing whether it's a partial patch, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, authorization needs, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention wait_for_commit, the shape of the response, or side effects of the update. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents alert_id and updates with clear descriptions. The description adds 'specific fields' to reinforce partial updates but doesn't explain wait_for_commit, which is undocumented. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds minor value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update), the target (alert), and the scope (specific fields by ID). It distinguishes itself from create-alert and bulk-update-alerts by focusing on a single alert targeted by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to update fields of one alert) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like bulk-update-alerts. It lacks exclusions or context about its comparative advantage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing any behavioral nuances such as required permissions, whether the comment is appended, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the minimal description omits important context such as prerequisite conditions, return behavior, or error scenarios. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only 50% of parameters (text has a description, incident_id does not). The description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the schema, leaving incident_id's format and purpose to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the specific resource ('comment to an incident timeline'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add-alert-comment' by specifying the target as an incident timeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for adding comments to incident timelines, not alert timelines. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives like 'add-alert-comment', but does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists all UI menus, but does not mention pagination, authentication, return format, or any other behavioral details. The description adds little beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters, but no output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned. 'List all UI menus' implies a collection of menus, but lacks detail on pagination or response structure. It is adequate but has a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates that all menus are listed without needing any input, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all UI menus'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get-menu' by indicating it retrieves all menus, not a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-menu' or 'get-views'. The description simply states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain what 'latest' means (e.g., scoped to current user, all runs), whether any state is affected, or what happens if no training run exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get' and immediately identifies the resource, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks return value details. It doesn't state what fields are in the status object or how the status is represented, leaving room for ambiguity about the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe; the schema is already complete with no properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'latest training run status', clearly indicating the tool's purpose and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-training-definition' and 'get-precheck-status' by focusing on the status of a training run specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention scenarios like after starting a training run or how it relates to other training-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (adding a comment/timeline entry), but does not mention side effects, ordering, permissions, or whether it is an append operation. Adequate for such a simple action, but thin on extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Perfectly sized for the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple 2-param tool with no output schema. It explains what the tool does and the parenthetical clarifies the timeline aspect. Lacks a bit of context about return values or side effects, but is not misleading.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not duplicate parameter info. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema properties (alert_id and text), which are already well described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('a comment'), and the context ('to an alert'), with a helpful parenthetical clarifying 'timeline entry'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add-incident-comment' by specifying alert resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add-incident-comment). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts provided, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Bulk-update all alerts matching a filter expression' but does not disclose that this is a bulk write affecting many records, potential irreversibility, rate limits, or other safety-relevant behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant words. It is concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a bulk mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain return behavior, error scenarios, or safety considerations that would be critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. The schema covers parameters but not the broader operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description adds no incremental meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'filter expression' and 'partial alert object' merely echoes the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Bulk-update' with resource 'alerts' and scope 'matching a filter expression', clearly distinguishing it from the single-alert update-alert sibling. The purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for updating all alerts that match a filter, which signals when to use it versus update-alert. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states a read operation ('Retrieve') but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions, or return format. This is a gap given the absence of annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly one sentence, no redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation, the description adequately implies the return value (the retrieved policy). However, without an output schema or annotations, it could benefit from specifying success/failure behavior, though the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter policy_id (type string) with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'by ID' to clarify that policy_id is the unique identifier for the policy being retrieved, providing minimal but useful semantic context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'policy' and clarifies scope as 'single policy by ID', distinguishing it from the sibling get-policies list tool. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-policies. The 'by ID' phrasing implies the use case of fetching a specific known policy, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what the response contains. The phrase 'List all runbooks' essentially restates the tool name without adding behavioral context beyond the obvious read intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'List all runbooks,' which is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every word earns its place with directness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose. The main gap is the lack of information about response format or pagination, but given the simplicity, the description is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema already indicates no inputs. Per rubric, 0 params baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all runbooks' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('runbooks') with scope ('all'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get-runbook' by using the plural form and 'all', indicating a bulk listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-runbook' (singular) for fetching individual runbooks. The description simply states the action without any context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the basic read action ('List') and does not mention potential behavioral traits such as pagination, limits, ordering, authentication requirements, or response format. While 'List' implies read-only, the description adds no useful behavioral context beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, 'List all trained model versions,' with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it states the core purpose. However, with no output schema, it could briefly mention what is returned (e.g., a list of version identifiers or metadata), though 'List' already implies a collection. Minor gaps exist around scope and result details, but overall it is adequate for such a simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain nonexistent parameters, and it adds no misleading information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all trained model versions' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (trained model versions), clearly distinguishing itself from the sibling tool 'get-trained-model-version' (singular) by specifying 'all'. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-trained-model-version' (singular) or 'delete-trained-model-version'. The description simply states the action without mentioning that this tool is for enumerating all versions while the singular variant retrieves a specific one. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' without explaining consequences such as irreversibility, idempotency, or error behavior if the key does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and scope without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which are important for agents invoking the tool blindly. Given no annotations, this leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that the operation deletes by 'key' for a 'specific user,' mapping directly to the required parameters key and user_id. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively clarifies the role of each parameter, even though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Admin: delete a preference by key for a specific user,' clearly identifying the verb (delete), resource (preference), and scope (key + user). This distinguishes it from siblings like admin-delete-all-user-preferences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'Admin:' prefix indicates this is an administrative action, and the phrase 'by key for a specific user' implies it's for deleting a single preference. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for bulk deletion use admin-delete-all-user-preferences.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation (delete a preference) without disclosing side effects, error handling (e.g., behavior for missing keys), idempotency, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence (9 words) with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the action, target, and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential action and scope. However, the lack of behavioral details (error handling, idempotency, return value) and the absence of an output schema leave gaps. It is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to understand all outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by key', which gives contextual meaning to the single 'key' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, some compensation is needed, and this does partially explain the key's role. However, it does not elaborate on the key's format or behavior, so it stops at a minimum viable level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (a preference), and the scope (by key for the current user). It distinguishes itself from admin sibling tools like admin-delete-user-preference by explicitly noting 'current user', and from upsert-my-preference by being a delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for the current user's preferences, which implies it is not for admin operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases (e.g., when to use admin-delete-user-preference instead). This is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only list operation but does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, required permissions, or return format. The behavior is otherwise consistent with the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is direct and front-loaded, which is ideal for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but still adequate for a simple list operation. It could be improved by noting anything about pagination or the specific fields returned, but the low complexity means this is not a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so by the baseline rule this scores 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics as none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' with the resource 'all runbook automation tools', clearly indicating a read operation that returns multiple items. It distinguishes from the singular sibling get-automation-tool by emphasizing 'all'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when all automation tools are needed, with the singular sibling tool presumably for retrieving one specific tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the primary action and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, rate limits, or read-only guarantees beyond the verb 'retrieve'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention potential caveats like pagination, response limits, or ordering, which could matter for a tool returning all incidents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The word 'all' reinforces the absence of filtering, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve all incidents' uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. The word 'all' clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'get-incident', which presumably fetches a single incident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving multiple incidents, especially given the sibling 'get-incident' for singular retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is only implied by the plural 'all incidents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the most recent precheck status, implying a read-only operation and temporal ordering. However, it does not describe response structure or error behavior, so transparency is limited but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks contextual details about what constitutes a precheck or what the status response contains. It is minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the latest precheck run status with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('precheck run status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like start-precheck and stop-precheck by focusing on status retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-training-status or get-policy-execution-status. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether results are paginated, ordered, or what fields are returned, nor does it mention any potential performance implications of listing 'all' views.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, 'List all UI views' is a sufficiently clear and complete description for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention response format or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool makes those omissions acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List all UI views') and clearly indicates a read-only collection operation. The word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get-view' tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: use this when you need all UI views, while 'get-view' likely fetches a single view. No explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Replace an entire policy by ID (PUT)' discloses that the operation is a full replacement (entire) and uses PUT semantics (idempotent, full overwrite). It implies the existing policy is overwritten, but does not mention permissions, error behavior, or missing ID handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action with no extra words. It is appropriately sized and immediately communicates the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not describe success/error responses, validation rules, or the required shape of the policy object, leaving important gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% with only 'policy' described. The description adds 'by ID' which aligns with 'policy_id' but does not explain parameter formats or the structure of the policy object. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 'policy_id' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Replace' with the resource 'policy' and the HTTP method (PUT), clearly indicating a full replacement operation by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update-policy' (likely a partial update) and 'create-policy'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context: use this tool to replace an entire policy by ID, implying full replacement semantics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for transparency. It only states the action without disclosing behaviors like what happens if no precheck is running, whether the stop is immediate or graceful, or how it affects subsequent status checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete, but it lacks context about edge cases (e.g., stopping when no run exists) or the impact on related tools like get-precheck-status. It is adequate but leaves room for helpful clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline for no params is 4, and there is nothing missing in this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop the current precheck run' clearly states a specific verb (stop) and resource (precheck run). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start-precheck and get-precheck-status, making its function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a precheck is currently running, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. For a simple control action, this implied guidance is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or response characteristics. It is minimal but not misleading, so it earns a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff and is front-loaded with the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description adequately covers the core functionality. The schema documents the parameters, and the description clearly identifies the operation. It is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool, though it could mention the 'fields' parameter behavior or typical response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (alert_id and fields). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'alert' and explicitly states 'single' and 'by its ID', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get-alerts (list) tool. It precisely conveys the scope and lookup mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for fetching one alert given an ID, which is clear context for a simple get-by-ID operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get-alerts or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'all insights' and an optional filter, which conveys the cardinality and filtering capability. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential performance implications for retrieving all insights.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that delivers all necessary information without fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the structure is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low parameter count and absence of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward retrieval tool. It distinguishes from get-alert-insight and explains the filtering option, though it could optionally mention that a single insight retrieval is available via sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating the type filter, but does not introduce syntax, format, or relationship details beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all insights for an alert with an optional type filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-alert-insight (singular) and create-alert-insight, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates an optional filter by insight type, implying usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get-alert-insight for retrieving a single insight, nor does it state when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation and implies no side effects, but no details are given about error handling, return format, or authentication. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it answers the core question of what the tool does instantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and lookup method. It does not explicitly mention the return value, but 'get' strongly implies it. The single-by-ID scope also subtly distinguishes it from get-incidents, providing enough context for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists incident_id as a string with no description, and the overall schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'by its ID' provides the basic semantic meaning of the parameter, but it offers no additional format, constraints, or examples. This minimal compensation keeps it at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'incident' and clearly limits scope to 'a single incident by its ID.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-incidents, which retrieves multiple incidents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its ID' implies the intended use case—retrieving a specific incident when the ID is known—but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated. The sibling get-incidents exists but is not mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention response format, potential pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimal and adds little beyond what the name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that earns its place. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly based on the plural scope. It communicates the core function clearly. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it returns a list of all training definitions, but the current wording effectively conveys this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter-related claims, allowing the schema to fully define the invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all training definitions,' which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-training-definition' by using the plural 'definitions' and 'all,' indicating a bulk retrieval rather than a single item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the phrase 'List all' – that this tool is for retrieving the full set of training definitions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular 'get-training-definition' or any other alternative, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List all visualization filters' and reveals nothing about pagination, ordering, return structure, or potential side effects. There is no context about read-only behavior, permissions, or data scope, leaving the agent with minimal understanding beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff, redundancy, or irrelevant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-all tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It clearly conveys the primary function, but lacks any detail about return values or behavioral constraints. Given the lack of supporting structured data, this is a minimum viable description that leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since the schema is empty. It correctly focuses on the operation itself, adding no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('visualization filters') with an explicit scope ('all'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-viz-filter' that likely retrieves a single filter. This is a clear and non-tautological purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'all' implies this tool is for listing every visualization filter, contrasting with 'get-viz-filter' for a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5. It provides clear context without explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read operation and provides severity mappings, but does not mention pagination, default return format, sorting, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides the severity mapping in the second sentence without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit details on pagination or response structure, but the schema covers parameter semantics, and the tool's purpose is clear. Without an output schema, some behavioral details would help, but the minimal nature of the tool makes this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by enumerating severity value meanings (6=Critical, 5=Major, etc.), which directly helps users construct filter expressions and adds value not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Retrieve all alerts', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies 'optionally filtered'. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular 'get-alert' tool and other CRUD operations on alerts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The plural 'all alerts' and the option to filter imply a list/query use case, and the sibling tools show this is the primary list operation. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It states the primary behavior (listing) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly names the action and target. While it could mention return format or pagination, the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional explanation is needed since there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all registered algorithms' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered algorithms'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get-algorithm', which likely fetches a single algorithm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'list all' clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving the full set of algorithms, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for this simple list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-only retrieval with no side effects, but does not detail return shape, default behavior when no preferences exist, or authentication requirements. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. It lacks an explicit return-value description or behavior when preferences are unset, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail; a fuller description could still add value, so not a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the empty schema provides 100% coverage by construction. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('current user's preferences'), with 'current user's' scope distinguishing it from admin preference tools like admin-get-all-preferences and from upsert/delete mutations. This is unambiguous and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'current user's' provides clear context that this is for the caller's own preferences, implying alternatives for admin/user-specific lookups. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently clear for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ibm-client-engineering/concert-operate-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server