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 key behavioral traits: it creates from a template and returns existing notes if already created, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or template specifics, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 main action and followed by important behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation with fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and behavior but misses details like output format, error cases, or template interaction, leaving room for improvement.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'date' parameter with format and default. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it only mentions the default implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a daily note from template') and resource ('daily note'), distinguishing it from siblings like daily_get (retrieval) or weekly_create (different timeframe). It also mentions the fallback behavior ('Returns existing note if already created'), which adds specificity.

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

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

The description implies usage for generating daily notes, with a default date of today, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like weekly_create or note_read. It provides clear context for its primary function but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'parsed sections' which hints at structured output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if no note exists for the date), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from output details.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of parsed sections), error cases, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that retrieves structured data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('daily note'), and specifies the content ('parsed sections: focus, tasks, log, gratitude, reflection'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'daily_create' or 'note_read' by focusing on structured daily notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'weekly_summary' or 'notes_list' in terms of scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'note_read' (for general notes) or 'weekly_summary' (for weekly overviews). The description implies usage for retrieving structured daily notes but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'sets' priorities, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, whether it overwrites existing priorities, if it creates a daily note if missing, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking for a write tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('date' and 'focus') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., max 3 items in 'focus'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('Top 3 focus priorities for a daily note'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'daily_get' (read) and 'daily_create' (create), though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'weekly_create' or other daily/weekly tools.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a daily note must exist first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'daily_create' (which might create a note) or 'inbox_prioritize' (which handles priorities differently). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions timestamp addition but doesn't specify whether this is automatic or requires input, what permissions are needed, whether items are editable after creation, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

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

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns ID, success status), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of adding items to an inbox system, more completeness is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify semantic nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a new item to the inbox'), specifying the verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inbox_list' (listing) and 'inbox_process' (processing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'task_add' which might have overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'task_add' or 'inbox_process'. It mentions timestamp addition but doesn't explain when this is preferable over other creation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the grouping behavior by priority categories, which is useful, but doesn't describe other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it includes all items or is paginated, or any performance characteristics.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information about 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies the grouping behavior, which is helpful, but doesn't describe the return format or any limitations. Without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read operation and what the output structure looks like.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by specifying the grouping behavior, which isn't captured in the parameter schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('inbox items'), specifying the grouping by priority categories. It distinguishes from siblings like inbox_add (adds items) and inbox_process (processes items), but doesn't explicitly contrast with notes_list or tasks_list which list different resource types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use inbox_list versus notes_list or tasks_list, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers for listing inbox items.

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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid line numbers), or side effects (e.g., affecting other items). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints (e.g., rate limits). For a tool that modifies data, this 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.

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'lineNumber' identifies an item and 'newPriority' is a section, which is covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Change the priority') and resource ('an inbox item'), specifying it moves items between sections. It distinguishes from siblings like inbox_add (adds items) and inbox_list (lists items), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from inbox_process (which might handle items similarly), keeping it from a perfect score.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing inbox item), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like inbox_process. The description implies usage for priority changes but lacks explicit context or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like moving and deleting, which imply mutation/destructive operations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with potentially destructive actions (like delete) and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Process an inbox item') and lists all key destinations. There's zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and destinations well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, side effects) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (lineNumber, destination, targetPath) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning destinations like 'project, daily note, area, archive, or delete', which aligns with the enum but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'process' and resource 'inbox item' with specific actions (moving to various destinations or deleting). It distinguishes from siblings like inbox_add, inbox_list, and inbox_prioritize by focusing on processing rather than adding, listing, or prioritizing items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from task_toggle or other task-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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

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

The description implies usage context by listing possible destinations (project, daily note, area, archive, delete), suggesting this tool is for managing inbox items after they've been added. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like inbox_prioritize or task_add, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing inbox item). This provides some guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation, which is clear, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist), permissions needed, or output format (e.g., returns note content as text). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

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

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., note content, metadata), error conditions, or usage context beyond the basic action. For a read tool with these gaps, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter as a relative path to the note. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a note from the vault'), specifying it's by relative path. It distinguishes from siblings like notes_list (which lists notes) and vault_search (which searches content), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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

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

The description implies usage when you need to read a specific note by its path, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like vault_search (for content search) or notes_list (for listing). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what happens with empty folders. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about what the list returns (e.g., note metadata, format) or behavioral aspects. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('folder' and 'pattern') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes in a folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'inbox_list' or 'projects_list' that also list items, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vault_search' (which might search notes) or 'inbox_list' (which lists different items). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. The mention of 'from template' hints at some behavior but lacks detail about template selection or defaults.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key distinguishing features. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'from template' means practically, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this fits into the broader system context with sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'area assignment' which aligns with the area parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about template selection or how name/area interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new project') and key features ('from template with area assignment'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects_list or weekly_create. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like daily_create or weekly_create beyond mentioning templates and area assignment.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like daily_create, weekly_create, or task_add. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for project creation, or when other creation tools might be more appropriate.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated or sorted, or what happens if no filters are applied. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and filtering options with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with optional filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('status' and 'area') well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by status or area, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List projects with status, area, deadline. Filter by status or area.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('projects'), and key attributes returned (status, area, deadline). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_create' or 'tasks_list', which would require a 5.

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

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

The description implies usage context through 'Filter by status or area,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving projects with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'tasks_list' or 'project_create,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a task, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool, warranting a low score.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for full understanding despite the concise structure.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'section' parameter defaults to 'Tareas', but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add a new task') and target resource ('to a note in the Tareas section'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'inbox_add' or 'task_toggle', which might also involve task management, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inbox_add' or 'task_toggle', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for adding tasks to notes, but lacks explicit 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing and filtering, but lacks behavioral details like whether it returns all tasks at once or paginates, what happens if multiple scopes conflict, or if it requires specific permissions. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List tasks') and succinctly covers scope and filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the tool's purpose and basic usage, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a list tool with filtering options.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by summarizing scope options and filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or interactions beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., how 'path' and 'folder' relate). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'tasks', specifying the scope ('from a specific note, folder, or the entire vault') and optional filtering ('Filter by status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'notes_list' (lists notes) and 'vault_search' (general search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inbox_list' (which might list tasks in inbox).

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 through scope options (note, folder, vault) and filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'inbox_list' for inbox tasks or 'vault_search' for broader searches. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'toggle' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid line numbers), or side effects (e.g., updates to task metadata). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('toggle a task') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the state change details.

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

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

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), output format, or integration with sibling tools. While the purpose is clear, the context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies data.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sourcePath' and 'lineNumber'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('toggle') and the resource ('task'), specifying the exact state change between 'pending [ ]' and 'completed [x]'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'task_add' (which creates tasks) and 'tasks_list' (which lists tasks) by focusing on status modification rather than creation or retrieval.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions (e.g., not for non-task items), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'inbox_process' or 'daily_set_focus' that might handle task status in different contexts. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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 mentions 'context lines' which hints at output format, but doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ranked, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('full-text search across the vault') and adds a useful detail ('with context lines'). There's zero wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (search with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., matches with context), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a search tool without structured output documentation, this leaves too much undefined.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, folder, limit) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or folder path formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs 'full-text search across the vault' with 'context lines', which specifies the verb (search), resource (vault), and scope (full-text with context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_list' or 'inbox_list' that might list content without search functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'notes_list' for browsing or 'inbox_search' (if existed), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create', implying a write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, whether it overwrites existing notes, error handling, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

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

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

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

Given the tool involves creation (a mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like what happens on success/failure, the structure of the created note, or how it interacts with siblings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the single parameter 'date' with its format and default. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('weekly review note from template'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'daily_create' or 'weekly_summary' beyond the 'weekly' qualifier, missing explicit distinction about what makes this tool unique versus those alternatives.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'daily_create' or 'weekly_summary'. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Generate' implies a read/aggregation operation rather than mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the summary takes (text, structured data, etc.), whether it's computationally expensive, or if there are rate limits. The description mentions what content is included but not how it's presented or any limitations.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence with three clear content areas) and front-loaded with the core action 'Generate weekly summary.' Every element earns its place by specifying what the summary contains. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks important context about the output format, behavioral characteristics, and usage guidelines. The description would need to compensate more for the missing annotations and output schema to be considered complete.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how the date parameter affects the summary generation or provide examples of date formatting beyond YYYY-MM-DD.

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: 'Generate weekly summary' with specific content areas (completed/pending tasks, dailies filled, project progress). It distinguishes from siblings like weekly_create (which presumably creates rather than generates summaries) and other task/project tools that operate at different granularities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like daily_get or notes_list.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to generate a weekly summary versus using daily_get for daily information, tasks_list for task overviews, or weekly_create for creating new weekly entries. There's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion criteria.

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