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 implies an informational role ('providing documentation and type definitions') but does not clarify whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or its safety profile. This is insufficient for a tool that may generate config files.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately sized, but the phrasing is ambiguous and contains filler like 'helps generate' and 'by providing,' reducing clarity. It could be more direct and front-loaded.

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

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

With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clearly state what the tool outputs or returns. It only suggests providing docs and type definitions, leaving the actual function and result vague.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Per rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4; there is no parameter information to add.

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

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

The description states the tool 'helps generate Starship configuration files' but the phrase 'helps generate by providing documentation and type definitions' introduces ambiguity—does it create files or supply reference material? It does not clearly distinguish from the sibling tool 'setupStarship'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs the siblings 'setupStarship' or 'verifyStarshipConfig'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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 says 'migrate a project' but gives no details about side effects, whether code is modified, required permissions, or how the migration proceeds. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that presumably changes the user's project.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The description covers the basic purpose and one prerequisite (IDE code availability), but given the complexity of a migration task, it lacks detail on what the migration entails, expected outcomes, or whether it is an automated rewrite or a guided process. The empty schema and lack of output schema mean more descriptive context would be beneficial.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds context by stating the user's code is expected to be in the IDE, which clarifies the implicit input. No parameter documentation is needed.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool migrates a project from CosmosKit to InterchainKit, naming both source and target. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling migrateToInterchainjs, which targets a different library.

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

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

The description implies usage by stating the migration guide is used and code must be available in the IDE, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tool names suggest similar migration tools, but the description gives no comparative guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It hints at behavior (dependency installation) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether this modifies project files, requires special permissions, or is reversible. The migration process itself is left opaque.

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

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

The description is concise—two sentences, each contributing value. The first states purpose, the second highlights a critical prerequisite using 'REQUIRES' in caps, making the key information front-loaded and actionable. No waste or redundancy.

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

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

Despite having only one parameter, this is a migration tool with complex behavior (code transformation, dependency installation), and no output schema exists. The description omits crucial context such as what files are changed, how the package manager is used, and what the final state should be, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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

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

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (packageManager) with an enum and explicit 'MUST be correctly determined' instruction. The description adds emphasis on correctness but no new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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

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

The description states 'Migrate CosmJS code to InterchainJS,' a specific verb and resource pair that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It distinctly differentiates from siblings like migrateFromCosmosKitToInterchainKit by naming the source and target stacks, and is unambiguous even without the tool name.

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

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

The description provides a clear prerequisite: the package manager must be correctly specified for proper dependency installation commands. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so usage guidance remains 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'setup and use' without any details about side effects, file modifications, permissions, or execution steps. This is entirely inadequate for a tool that likely performs complex setup actions.

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

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

The description is a single sentence and is concise, with no unnecessary words except possibly 'and use'. It is front-loaded with the verb 'setup', making the primary purpose immediately visible. However, it is under-specified, though that is captured under other dimensions.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. For a setup tool, the description fails to explain what 'setup' entails, expected outcomes, or any side effects. It is grossly incomplete for a tool likely to perform multi-step operations.

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

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

The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter information but none is required. It correctly implies that no arguments are needed.

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

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

The description states a clear resource (Starship) and an action ('setup'), but 'use' is vague and the overall scope is unclear. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like generateStarshipConfig, which likely also involves setup. The description is too generic to be considered specific.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for deciding between setupStarship and sibling tools such as generateStarshipConfig or verifyStarshipConfig.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must stand alone. It discloses that the tool provides examples and usage patterns, implying a read-only informational resource, but does not detail return format, limitations, or prerequisites beyond the schema's parameter description.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it repeats the idea of providing guidance twice ('provides comprehensive examples and usage patterns' and 'call this tool for any...guidance'), which could be more tightly worded.

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

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

For a simple guidance tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits what the returned examples or patterns look like. It also does not explain how the majorVersion parameter influences the output, relying entirely on the schema for that.

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

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

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (majorVersion) with enum values and guidance on v2 being default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing Chain Registry examples and usage patterns, distinguishing it from siblings which focus on Starship and Interchain configuration. However, it lacks a precise verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and is broad with 'any guidance', making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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

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

Explicitly instructs to call for any Chain Registry implementation guidance, giving a clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the provided context is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the main behavior: providing examples filtered by the specified network. However, it does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., code snippets, links, textual guidance) or any potential limitations, so the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the tool's core purpose and the key usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundant content are present, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand its purpose and usage. It mentions examples and usage patterns, giving a general expectation of the return content. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the format or nature of these examples, which is why it does not receive a perfect score.

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

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

The input schema already provides a full description of the 'network' parameter, including its enum values, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The tool description reinforces the parameter's role ('Specify the target network') but does not add additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already conveys, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing comprehensive examples and usage patterns for the InterchainJS library. It goes beyond a generic resource by specifying the action (provides) and the target (InterchainJS examples), and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like setupStarship or migrateToInterchainjs by focusing on examples rather than setup or migration.

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

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

The description instructs the user to specify a target network to get relevant examples, which implies that the tool is used when examples for a particular network are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for use, such as 'use this instead of useInterchainKit for InterchainJS.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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. The verb 'provides' and phrase 'examples and usage patterns' imply a non-mutating, informational tool that returns guidance content. However, it does not detail the response format, potential limitations, or whether any external resources are accessed, leaving some ambiguity about expected behavior.

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

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

The description is two short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise, but the comma splice and slight redundancy in 'Interchain Kit implementation guidance' prevent a perfect score. Overall, every word contributes and it is easily digestible.

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

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

This is a simple reference-style tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys what the agent will receive ('comprehensive examples and usage patterns') and when to invoke it. It could add more detail about output structure, but for a guidance tool, the purpose and usage are well covered.

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

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

The schema already fully describes the only parameter 'framework' with an enum and clear description ('The frontend framework of the project'). The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning, so it provides no value beyond the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'provides comprehensive examples and usage patterns for the Interchain Kit.' The verb 'provides' is specific and the resource (Interchain Kit examples/guidance) is defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like setupStarship and generateStarshipConfig by positioning itself as the general guidance tool for Interchain Kit.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'call this tool for any Interchain Kit implementation guidance,' which gives clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, such as setupStarship for setup tasks, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states parse/validate but does not disclose what happens on invalid input, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return value looks like. While likely safe, this info is missing.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value, stating exactly what the tool does.

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

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

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose. However, it lacks return/error behavior details, which is a gap given no output schema. Still, the core context is sufficient for a basic validation tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already fully explains yamlContent. The tool description merely says 'YAML string' but adds no new semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Parses and validates') and resource ('Starship configuration YAML string') with a specific scope ('against the known schema'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup/generate/migrate, which are not validation-focused.

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

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

Usage is implied from the purpose—use this tool when you need to validate a Starship config YAML—but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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