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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 well-structured and extremely concise: a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter meaning, and return content overview. However, for a retrieval tool without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and possibly clarify the relationship with 'list_alarms'. The description is minimally adequate but could be more 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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'alarm_id' with its semantic meaning ('OCID of the alarm to retrieve'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. This adds essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on OCID format or validation rules. For a single parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic clarification.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific alarm.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('alarm'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_alarms' beyond the singular vs. plural naming. The description is accurate but lacks explicit 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 'list_alarms' or other retrieval tools. It mentions retrieving 'a specific alarm' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose this over other methods. No explicit usage context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of entries with timestamps and state changes, which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how data is paginated or limited, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', using bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks output details beyond a high-level description. Without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error handling or data scope, leaving room for improvement in contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'alarm_id' is explained as 'OCID of the alarm', and 'alarm_historytype' is described with its types (STATE_TRANSITION_HISTORY, STATE_HISTORY, RULE_HISTORY) and a default value. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail format constraints or usage examples.

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: 'Get alarm state history.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('alarm state history'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_alarm' or 'list_alarms', which might retrieve current alarm data or lists of alarms, respectively.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_alarm' (likely for current alarm details) and 'list_alarms' (likely for listing alarms), there's no indication of when historical data is needed or how this tool fits into broader workflows. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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.

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

The description is well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by specific sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' each providing essential information in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return content, but lacks behavioral details like read-only confirmation or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete by addressing missing 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'autonomous_database_id' is an 'OCID of the Autonomous Database to retrieve.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID), which is valuable since the schema has 0% description coverage and only provides a title. With one parameter well-explained, the description compensates effectively.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific Autonomous Database.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Autonomous Database'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_autonomous_databases' beyond the singular vs. plural naming, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_autonomous_databases' for listing multiple databases or clarify that this is for retrieving details of a single, specific database identified by its OCID. Without such context, the agent lacks explicit usage 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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.

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return value at a high level, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a simple read tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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

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

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'boot_volume_id: OCID of the boot volume to retrieve.' This clarifies that the ID is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier) and specifies its purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (no schema descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing essential parameter context, though it doesn't cover format or validation rules.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific boot volume.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('boot volume'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_volume' or 'list_boot_volumes', 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_boot_volumes' for listing volumes or 'get_volume' for other volume types, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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 retrieves 'detailed information' and mentions return content like 'public access settings and versioning,' which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., if the bucket doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with cloud storage.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points for 'Args' and 'Returns' that efficiently organize key information. Every sentence 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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or security requirements. Without an output schema, it helpfully hints at return values ('public access settings and versioning'), but this isn't comprehensive. It's a minimal viable description with clear 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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'bucket_name' is the 'Name of the bucket' and clarifies that 'namespace' is 'Optional' and will be 'fetched automatically' if not provided. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., naming rules for buckets).

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific Object Storage bucket.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Object Storage bucket'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_buckets' or other 'get_' tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_buckets' for listing multiple buckets or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or when namespace specification is necessary, leaving usage unclear.

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 this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the high-level mention of targets, alert rules, and spend tracking. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, though the 'Returns' section could be more detailed given the lack of output schema. Overall, it's efficient and well-organized.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and the full scope of return values. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps in transparency.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'budget_id' is an 'OCID of the budget to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and format beyond the schema's minimal title ('Budget Id'). With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't cover edge cases or examples.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific budget.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('budget'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_budgets' or 'get_cost_by_compartment' beyond the 'specific budget' qualifier. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_budgets' for listing all budgets or 'get_cost_by_compartment' for cost-related queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for retrieving a specific budget. Usage is implied by the parameter requirement but not explicitly 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves cost data but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or involves data freshness considerations. For a tool that likely accesses billing/financial data, this lack of behavioral context 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.

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence serves a specific function without redundancy. Minor improvements could include more explicit formatting, but overall it's efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It adequately covers parameters and return format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention more about authentication needs, error conditions, or data limitations to be fully comprehensive.

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

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

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'tenant_id: OCID of the tenancy', 'time_usage_started: Start time in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)', and 'time_usage_ended: End time in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)'. This provides essential semantic context that the schema alone lacks, though it could benefit from mentioning format constraints or examples.

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: 'Get cost breakdown by compartment for a tenancy.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('cost breakdown'), and scope ('by compartment for a tenancy'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_cost_by_service' or other cost-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_service' or 'get_cost_usage_summary', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of costs grouped by service, which is helpful, but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a cost-reporting tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner, preventing a perfect score.

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 basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output specifics. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effectiveness.

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

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

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'tenant_id' is an OCID, specifies the ISO format for date parameters, and clarifies their roles as start and end times. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like timezone handling.

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: 'Get cost breakdown by service for a tenancy.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('cost breakdown by service'), and scope ('for a tenancy'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_compartment' or 'get_cost_usage_summary,' which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_compartment' or 'get_cost_usage_summary,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is the need for a tenancy and date range, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective usage.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by omitting obvious details like 'List of'.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the Returns section is helpful but could detail the summary structure more.

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

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

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'OCID of the tenancy', 'Start time in ISO format'), specifies defaults ('defaults to DAILY'), and clarifies formats ('YYYY-MM-DD'). This compensates well 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get cost and usage summary for a tenancy.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('cost and usage summary'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_compartment' or 'get_cost_by_service', which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_compartment' or 'get_cost_by_service', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information about the active profile, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., if no profile is set), rate limits, or the format of the returned information. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.

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: the first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on the return value. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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

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

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't specify the structure or content of the returned information (e.g., profile name, configuration details). For a tool that provides configuration data, this lack of output detail leaves significant gaps in understanding how to 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters, and the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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: 'Get the currently active OCI profile' and 'Returns information about which profile is currently being used for API calls.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active OCI profile'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_oci_profiles' or 'set_oci_profile', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_oci_profiles' (which might list all profiles) or 'set_oci_profile' (which might change the active profile), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the database_id is invalid. The description is minimal beyond stating 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.

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. It explains what the tool does, the parameter, and the return information. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'database_id: OCID of the database to retrieve.' This clarifies that the ID is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier) and its purpose, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately covers its 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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific database.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('database'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_autonomous_database' or 'list_databases' beyond the singular vs. plural 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving details of a single database (vs. 'list_databases' for multiple), it doesn't explicitly state this or mention prerequisites like needing a database_id. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage rules.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get DB Node details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary 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.

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word serves a purpose: 'Get' indicates the action, 'DB Node' specifies the resource, and 'details' suggests granular information. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to interpret results, error handling, or any operational considerations. For a tool that presumably interacts with database infrastructure, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'db_node_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to explain what a DB node ID is, where to find it, or its expected format. With one required parameter and no schema documentation, the description adds no value beyond what's already implied by the tool name.

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

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

The description 'Get DB Node details' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_db_node' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about a database node, it lacks specificity about what details are returned or the scope of the operation. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'list_db_nodes' or other get_* 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 like authentication, differentiate from 'list_db_nodes' for bulk retrieval, or specify when detailed node information is needed versus summary data. With many sibling tools available, this absence of context is problematic.

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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get DB System details') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the details are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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 extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a simple-sounding tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the necessary detail that would make it truly helpful.

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

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

Given the complexity of database systems in cloud environments, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how this differs from list operations, what authentication is required, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that likely interacts with production database infrastructure, this minimal description poses significant risks for correct agent usage.

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 1 parameter (db_system_id) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - what a DB System ID is, where to find it, its format, or examples. While there's only one parameter, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent guessing about required input.

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

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

The description 'Get DB System details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_db_system' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the resource ('DB System') but lacks detail about what specific details are retrieved or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_database' or 'list_db_systems'. This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'get_database', 'list_db_systems', 'get_db_node', and 'get_autonomous_database', there is no indication of when this specific DB System retrieval is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what distinguishes it from other database-related tools. This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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 this is a read operation ('get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the dynamic_group_id is invalid. It partially describes the return format ('detailed dynamic group information including matching rules'), but lacks specifics on structure or completeness.

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 well-structured and appropriately concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main sentence.

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

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

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but lacks behavioral details (like error handling) that would be helpful given the absence of annotations. The mention of return content ('matching rules for instance principals') partially compensates for no output schema.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'dynamic_group_id: OCID of the dynamic group to retrieve.' This clarifies that the ID is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier) and specifies its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't explain OCID format or validation rules.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific dynamic group.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('dynamic group'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_group' or 'list_dynamic_groups' beyond mentioning it's for a 'specific' dynamic group.

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 sibling tools like 'list_dynamic_groups' (for listing groups) or 'get_group' (for static groups), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for retrieving a specific dynamic group.

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 the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on return format, error handling, or operational context. It's minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but doesn't fully address the gaps left by missing structured data.

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

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

The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'file_system_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the file system to retrieve'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it could specify OCID format or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific File Storage file system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_file_systems' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools beyond the resource type.

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

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

The description implies usage when detailed information about a specific file system is needed, contrasting with 'list_file_systems' for listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention alternatives for similar retrieval operations among other get_* 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'group_id: OCID of the group to retrieve.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose and format (OCID). With only one parameter, this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific IAM group.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('IAM group'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'get_user', 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_groups' (for listing all groups) or 'get_user' (for user details), 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and specifies the return content, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'image_id' by explaining it as the 'OCID of the image to retrieve,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic 'Image Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., OCID structure).

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific compute image.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('compute image'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_images' or other 'get_' tools, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_images' for browsing images or other 'get_' tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative guidance limits its effectiveness.

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, how errors are handled, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that retrieves data with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal, making it structurally efficient.

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

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

Given the complexity (a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instance' refers to in this system, what details are returned, error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data about a resource, this minimal description is inadequate for effective use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about the 'instance_id' parameter—it doesn't explain what an instance ID is, where to find it, its format, or validation rules. While the parameter count is low (1), the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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

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

The description 'Get details of a specific instance' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_instance' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_vcn' or 'get_subnet' which follow the same pattern, nor does it clarify what type of instance (e.g., compute instance, database instance) or what details are included. The verb 'get' is generic, and 'instance' is ambiguous in this context.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, distinguish it from similar tools like 'list_instances' (which likely lists multiple instances), or specify contexts where fetching details for a single instance is appropriate. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from 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. It describes the action ('Get detailed information') and mentions the return format ('including algorithm, shape, and versions'), which adds value. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool accessing encryption keys.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a prerequisite note and clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 does a decent job covering purpose, parameters, and return information. However, for a tool dealing with encryption keys, more behavioral context (e.g., security implications, error handling) would improve completeness, especially with 2 required parameters and no structured output documentation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'key_id: OCID of the key to retrieve' and 'management_endpoint: Management endpoint from the vault (get from vault details)'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific encryption key.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('encryption key'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_keys' or 'get_vault' beyond the specificity of retrieving a single key.

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

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

The description provides clear context for usage with the note: 'You must first get a vault to obtain its management_endpoint.' This indicates a prerequisite and workflow guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_keys' or other 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed given the lack of output schema.

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 (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the parameter semantics and return scope, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't fully guide usage relative to siblings. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'load_balancer_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the load balancer to retrieve'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though not a 5 as it doesn't explain OCID format or sourcing.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific classic load balancer'), distinguishing it from generic 'get' operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_load_balancer' or 'list_load_balancers', 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_load_balancers' or 'get_network_load_balancer'. It mentions retrieving 'a specific classic load balancer' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing the OCID first from a list operation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions the namespace is a 'unique identifier,' which implies it's a lookup rather than a mutation. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the result is cached. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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

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

The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential context without redundancy. The three-sentence structure efficiently explains what it does, why it matters, and what it returns, with zero wasted words.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, importance, and return format ('Dictionary with namespace information'). The main gap is lack of behavioral details like authentication or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described as having no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the Object Storage namespace for the tenancy') and resource ('Object Storage namespace'), distinguishing it from siblings that retrieve other OCI resources like alarms, databases, or instances. It explicitly identifies what makes this tool unique among the many get_* 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 explicit usage guidance: 'It's required for all Object Storage operations.' This tells the agent when this tool is necessary (as a prerequisite for Object Storage work) and implicitly when not to use it (for non-Object Storage tasks). It effectively positions this as a foundational tool.

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 it retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond backend sets and listeners. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or authentication, and the return value description is vague ('detailed information including backend sets and listeners').

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'network_load_balancer_id: OCID of the network load balancer to retrieve.' This clarifies that the ID is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier) and its purpose, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific network load balancer.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('network load balancer'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_load_balancer' or 'list_network_load_balancers' beyond the specificity of 'network' in the 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_load_balancer' (which might be for classic load balancers) or 'list_network_load_balancers' (which lists multiple), 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and 'all security rules,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects), mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is well-structured and concise, using a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info into the main description, but overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, auth) and doesn't fully explain the return value beyond 'Detailed NSG information with all security rules.' For a read operation, this is minimal but viable.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'nsg_id: OCID of the NSG to retrieve.' This clarifies that 'nsg_id' is an Oracle Cloud Identifier (OCID), which is crucial semantic information not present in the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). Since there's only one parameter, this effectively compensates 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific Network Security Group.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Network Security Group'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_network_security_groups' or 'get_security_list', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_network_security_groups' for listing multiple NSGs or 'get_security_list' for related resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The absence of such guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from 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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which is consistent with typical 'get' tools, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. It adds value by detailing the return content, but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and detailed return information. However, it lacks output schema, so the return details are helpful but informal, and behavioral aspects like error handling are omitted, leaving minor 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines the single parameter 'cluster_id' as 'OCID of the cluster', adding crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Cluster Id' title. This clarifies the format and purpose of the parameter, effectively compensating for the low 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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('about a specific OKE cluster'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_oke_clusters' (which lists multiple clusters) and 'get_oke_cluster_kubeconfig' (which retrieves a specific configuration file). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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

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

The description implicitly suggests usage when detailed information about a specific cluster is needed, as opposed to listing clusters or getting other cluster-related data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_oke_clusters' for overviews, leaving some room for improvement in explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves kubeconfig content but omits critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if the cluster must be active, potential rate limits, or if the operation is idempotent. For a tool that accesses sensitive cluster credentials, 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.

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool does, what it requires, and what it produces, with zero 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving sensitive configuration data) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It adequately explains the purpose and return format but lacks behavioral context about permissions, cluster state requirements, and security implications that would be important for safe usage.

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

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

The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'cluster_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the cluster'), adding essential semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. While it doesn't elaborate on OCID format or validation, it provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what this parameter represents.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the kubeconfig file content') and resource ('for accessing an OKE cluster'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_oke_cluster' which likely retrieves cluster metadata rather than configuration files. The purpose is unambiguous and well-specified.

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 whether it's for initial cluster setup, troubleshooting, or automation. It doesn't mention prerequisites like cluster state requirements or authentication context, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which is appropriate. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The return details are listed but lack context on format or potential omissions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points efficiently to detail return values without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose content.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return details. However, it lacks information on authentication, error handling, or operational constraints, which would enhance completeness for a cloud resource 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'node_pool_id: OCID of the node pool.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide examples or validation rules beyond the basic definition.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific node pool.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('node pool'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_oke_node_pools' by focusing on a specific instance rather than listing multiple.

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

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

The description implies usage context by specifying 'a specific node pool' and providing the required 'node_pool_id' parameter. It differentiates from 'list_oke_node_pools' by focusing on detailed retrieval vs. listing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions beyond this implicit distinction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and lists return fields, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or latency. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context on error cases or response structure to be fully complete.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Work Request Id'), but the description specifies that 'work_request_id' is an 'OCID of the work request', clarifying its format and purpose. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific OKE work request.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('OKE work request'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_oke_work_requests' or 'get_oke_cluster', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_oke_work_requests' for listing multiple work requests or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a specific work request ID, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond policy statements. For a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and return value specifics. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'policy_id: OCID of the policy to retrieve.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Policy Id' without explanation), this compensates well by specifying the format (OCID) and purpose. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description effectively clarifies its semantics beyond the minimal 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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific IAM policy.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IAM policy'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_policies' or other 'get_' tools, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_policies' for browsing policies or other 'get_' tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative guidance limits its effectiveness.

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 retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return value. There's no wasted text.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return value, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, errors, or performance. For a simple read operation, this might be adequate, but it leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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

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

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains that 'security_list_id' is the 'OCID of the security list to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here there's one parameter with partial explanation.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific security list.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('security list'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_security_lists' by focusing on a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools beyond the resource type.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving a specific security list by ID, it doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_security_lists' for browsing or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time. The description lacks depth for a tool that likely interacts with cloud infrastructure.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return content, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or performance characteristics. For a cloud resource retrieval tool, more details on permissions or data freshness would improve completeness.

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

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

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'subnet_id' is an 'OCID of the subnet to retrieve', clarifying the parameter's purpose and format (Oracle Cloud Identifier). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't detail validation rules or examples.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific subnet'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_subnets' or 'get_vcn', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single subnet by ID rather than listing multiple.

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 sibling tools like 'list_subnets' for browsing or 'get_vcn' for related network information, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the subnet's OCID. Usage is implied but not explicitly 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the tenancy_id is invalid. 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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by specific sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential information 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the parameter and return values, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or authentication needs. For a read-only tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps in operational context.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'tenancy_id: OCID of the tenancy.' This clarifies that it's an Oracle Cloud Identifier, which is crucial semantic information not evident from the schema alone (which has 0% description coverage). Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately compensates 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a tenancy.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tenancy'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_vcn' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_tenancies' if it existed), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool accessing IAM resources with no annotation coverage, this represents 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.

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes the tool's function, the second clarifies the single parameter, and the third describes the return value. No wasted words 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate, particularly for an IAM-related operation.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds substantial value by explaining that 'user_id' is an 'OCID of the user to retrieve'. This provides crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks. The description doesn't explain OCID format or where to obtain it, but it meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific IAM user'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'get_group', which provide related but different 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 choose 'get_user' over 'list_users' (which likely returns multiple users) or 'get_group' (which might return group information including users), leaving the agent without 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The mention of 'detailed vault information' is vague and lacks specifics on what 'detailed' entails.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It uses a clear header format ('Args:', 'Returns:') and bullet-like presentation, making it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a tool in this context, it should ideally include more about authentication, error handling, or output structure 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'vault_id: OCID of the vault to retrieve.' This clarifies that 'vault_id' is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier), which is crucial semantic information not present in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). Since there's only one parameter, the description effectively compensates 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific KMS vault.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('KMS vault'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vaults' or 'get_key', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_vaults' for listing multiple vaults or 'get_key' for related resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit usage 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read operation) and mentions the return content, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors). Without an output schema, the 'Returns' section is helpful but not exhaustive.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'vcn_id' is the 'OCID of the VCN to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail OCID structure or validation rules. With only one parameter, the baseline is high.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific VCN.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('VCN'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_vcns' by focusing on a single VCN rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_subnet'), so it's not a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_vcns' for listing all VCNs or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing the VCN ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the VNIC doesn't exist. The return statement adds some value but is incomplete.

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

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

The description is perfectly structured and concise. It uses three clear sections (purpose, args, returns) with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information in a well-organized format.

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 does a decent job but has gaps. It explains the parameter well and gives a high-level overview of return data, but doesn't provide complete behavioral context (authentication, errors) or detailed output structure. For a simple retrieval tool, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains that 'vnic_id' is the 'OCID of the VNIC to retrieve,' adding crucial context about the parameter format and purpose that the schema lacks. For a single parameter tool, this is highly effective.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific VNIC.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('VNIC'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vnics' or other 'get_' tools. The purpose is clear but lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_vnics' for listing multiple VNICs or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites or when this specific retrieval is 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's safe to invoke. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by specific sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, especially in guiding the agent on when to use it.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'volume_id: OCID of the volume to retrieve.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Volume Id' and type 'string'), this clarifies that 'OCID' refers to Oracle Cloud Identifier, which is crucial for correct usage. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of OCIDs, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific Block Storage volume.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Block Storage volume'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_boot_volume' or 'list_volumes', which prevents a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_volumes' for browsing volumes or 'get_boot_volume' for similar retrieval operations. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent lacks direction 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('List') and specifies the return format, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is safe/destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about the data structure. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 (single parameter list operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or detailed return format. For a tool with no structured metadata, it's minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.

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

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

The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('compartment_id: OCID of the compartment to list alarms from'), adding crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). Since there's only one parameter and the description fully explains it, this compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 ('List all alarms') and the resource ('in a compartment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_alarm' (which retrieves a single alarm) and other list_* tools for different resources. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about 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.

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

The description implies usage context by specifying 'in a compartment' and listing a required compartment_id parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_alarm' or other list_* tools. It provides basic operational context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection or exclusion criteria.

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 it states the tool lists databases and describes the return content (configuration, workload type, connection info), it lacks critical behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence states the core functionality, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return content. There's no redundant or wasted text, 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 moderate complexity (list operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides basic completeness: it states what the tool does, explains the parameter, and outlines return content. However, it lacks important contextual details like pagination, sorting/filtering options, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an AI agent. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about the return 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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'compartment_id' by explaining it's the 'OCID of the compartment to list Autonomous Databases from.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the schema provides (which has 0% description coverage, only showing 'Compartment Id' as title). Since there's only one parameter and the description fully explains it, this compensates well 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.

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 all Autonomous Databases in a compartment.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Autonomous Databases'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_autonomous_database' (singular retrieval) and 'list_databases' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools beyond 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.

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

The description implies usage context by specifying 'in a compartment' and listing the required 'compartment_id' parameter, which suggests this tool is for compartment-scoped listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_autonomous_database' for single database retrieval or other list tools for different resources. 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and describes the return format, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this operation has any side effects. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args, Returns) and uses only three sentences total. Each sentence earns its place by providing distinct information. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by parameter and return details. Minor improvement could be integrating the guidance more naturally into the flow.

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 operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional coverage but lacks operational context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't address how it behaves (pagination, errors, etc.). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should ideally provide more complete behavioral context for optimal 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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. The Args section explains that 'compartment_id' is an 'OCID of the compartment' and provides practical guidance: 'typically use tenancy OCID for root'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and offers usage advice that isn't in the schema. With only 1 parameter, the description effectively documents its 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 verb ('List') and resource ('availability domains in a compartment'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_regions' or 'list_fault_domains' by focusing on availability domains specifically.

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 implied usage context by mentioning 'typically use tenancy OCID for root' in the Args section, which helps guide parameter selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_regions' or 'list_fault_domains', and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and describes the return format, but lacks critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions for a cloud API tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, 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?

For a simple list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameters, return format) adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling to be fully complete.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema (0% coverage). It explains that 'compartment_id' identifies where to list from and 'availability_domain' is an optional filter, clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't specify format details like OCID structure or AD naming conventions.

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 ('boot volumes') with scope ('in a compartment'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_boot_volume' (singular) or other list tools, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_boot_volume' (for a specific volume) or other list tools. It mentions optional filtering by availability_domain but doesn't explain when this is useful or what happens if omitted.

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 the action ('List') and return type ('List of buckets'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear and efficient, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, errors) and return format specifics. For a simple list tool, it's minimally adequate but incomplete for robust agent use without additional context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'compartment_id' as 'OCID of the compartment to list buckets from' and 'namespace' as 'Optional namespace (if not provided, will be fetched automatically)', clarifying purpose and default behavior beyond the schema's basic types. This covers both parameters effectively, though not exhaustively.

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 ('Object Storage buckets in a compartment'), specifying scope with 'all'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_bucket' (singular retrieval) and 'list_compartments' (different resource), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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. While it implicitly suggests use for listing buckets, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare to other list tools (e.g., 'list_vaults' for different resources). The description lacks explicit usage context or alternatives.

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 the return format but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and return format but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, which are important for a list operation in a cloud service context.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'compartment_id' parameter as 'OCID of the compartment to list budgets from', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it does not cover other potential parameters or constraints, though only one parameter exists.

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 ('budgets in a compartment'), specifying the scope ('all budgets') and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_budget' which likely retrieves a single budget. It provides specific, actionable purpose.

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 listing budgets within a compartment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_budget' or other list_* tools. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or 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 full burden. It states 'accessible to the user', hinting at permission-based filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a list operation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, 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 complexity (a list operation with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination, or how 'accessible' is determined, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List all compartments') and the resource ('compartments accessible to the user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_tenancy_info' or 'list_oci_profiles', but the verb 'list' and resource 'compartments' provide enough specificity for basic clarity.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_tenancy_info', 'list_oci_profiles'), the description lacks context about whether this is for general compartment discovery, permission checks, or other use cases, leaving the agent to infer 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format (list with state, version, connection info), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list operation 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the next two explain parameters, and the last describes returns. No wasted words.

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

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

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't cover pagination, errors, or operational constraints. For a list tool with no annotations, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'compartment_id' as 'OCID of the compartment to list databases from' and 'db_system_id' as 'Optional OCID of the DB System to filter databases'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it doesn't detail OCID format or validation.

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 ('databases in a compartment'), with optional filtering by DB System. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_database' (singular retrieval) and 'list_db_systems' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_autonomous_databases' (a specific database type).

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

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

The description implies usage for listing databases within a compartment, optionally filtered. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'list_autonomous_databases' for specific database types. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 that 'compartment_id is always required by the SDK', which adds useful behavioral context about mandatory parameters. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists).

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage, but lacks details on behavior, output format, error conditions, or sibling differentiation. For a simple list tool, this is adequate 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'compartment_id is always required' and mentions optional filtering by 'DB System', which maps to the two parameters (compartment_id and db_system_id). However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats, valid values, or examples, leaving gaps in semantic understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('DB Nodes in a compartment'), with optional filtering by DB System. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_db_node' (singular) and 'list_db_systems', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_databases' or 'list_instances' beyond 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.

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

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'optionally filtered by DB System' and notes that 'compartment_id is always required by the SDK', which provides some guidance on parameter requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_db_node' for single nodes or 'list_db_systems' for systems, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON array of systems). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List DB Systems'), making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., pagination), parameter details, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'compartment_id' undocumented. The description mentions 'in a compartment', which hints at the parameter's role, but doesn't explain what a compartment ID is, its format, or how to obtain it. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 the resource 'DB Systems in a compartment', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'list_db_nodes', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources.

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 a valid compartment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'get_db_system' for a single system). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately.

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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with cloud resources.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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.

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like permissions or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'compartment_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the compartment to list dynamic groups from'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, making the parameter's role clear, though it doesn't cover format details like OCID structure.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List all dynamic groups') and the resource ('in a compartment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_group' (singular) or other list_* tools, which would require mentioning it retrieves multiple groups versus 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.

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 sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_group' for retrieving a single group or other list_* tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists fault domains but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The description adds limited value 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.

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

The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'compartment_id: OCID of the compartment' and 'availability_domain: Name of the availability domain.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining what each parameter represents, though it lacks format details like OCID structure or domain naming conventions.

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 all fault domains in an availability domain.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('fault domains'), and scope ('in an availability domain'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_availability_domains' or 'list_regions,' which prevents a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing compartment and availability domain information, and does not mention sibling tools like 'list_availability_domains' for related operations. This results in minimal usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are needed for effective tool invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'compartment_id' is an OCID and 'availability_domain' is a name, which clarifies the parameter types beyond the schema's string types. However, it doesn't provide format details or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List all File Storage file systems') and the scope ('in a compartment and availability domain'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_system' (singular vs. plural), though the 'list' prefix implies a collection operation.

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 'get_file_system' for retrieving a single file system or other list tools for different resources. It mentions the required parameters but doesn't explain usage context or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for args and returns. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional context.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'compartment_id' by explaining it's the 'OCID of the compartment to list groups from', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't cover all potential parameter nuances like format or validation.

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 ('all IAM groups in a compartment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'list_dynamic_groups', which list other IAM resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_group' (which retrieves a single group) or other list tools, nor does it specify any 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent fully about 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.

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the others provide essential parameter and output details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized 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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return format, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple list operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'compartment_id' as 'OCID of the compartment to list images from,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title 'Compartment Id.' However, it doesn't cover all potential nuances (e.g., format or validation), but with only one parameter, this is adequate for a baseline near 4.

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 all compute images in a compartment.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('compute images'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_image', the scope ('all' in a compartment) implies a listing operation versus a single retrieval. However, it doesn't directly compare to sibling tools, so it's not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_image' (for retrieving a single image) or other listing tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is minimal.

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 'List all instances' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' entails (e.g., filtering options). This is a significant gap for a read operation with no structured safety hints.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, and parameter context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list of instances with potential complexity.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond 'compartment'. It doesn't explain what a compartment is, how to obtain its ID, or constraints, 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.

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 ('instances in a compartment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_instance' (singular) or 'list_vnics' which might list related resources, so it's not fully distinguished from 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. With many sibling tools like 'get_instance' (singular retrieval) and other list tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming 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. It describes the operation as a list/read action (implied non-destructive) and mentions the prerequisite of obtaining management_endpoint, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions that would be important for a cloud resource tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, important prerequisite note, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters and return format. However, it could provide more behavioral context about the list operation (e.g., pagination, sorting, filtering) given the complexity of cloud resource management.

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

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

The description adds significant value beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains that 'compartment_id' is an OCID and 'management_endpoint' comes from vault details, clarifying the purpose and source of both parameters that the bare schema titles don't provide.

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 'encryption keys in a vault's compartment', specifying the scope precisely. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_key' (singular retrieval) and 'list_vaults' (different resource type), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides clear context with the note about obtaining the management_endpoint from a vault first, which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_key' or other list tools, missing sibling differentiation.

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 this is a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'List'). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second explains the parameter, and the third outlines the return data. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return content, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) and doesn't reference sibling tools. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but has clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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

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

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the single parameter ('compartment_id: OCID of the compartment to list load balancers from'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only shows title 'Compartment Id'). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints like OCID structure.

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 ('classic load balancers in a compartment'), specifying the scope ('all classic load balancers') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_load_balancer' (singular) and 'list_network_load_balancers' (different type). The purpose 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.

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 sibling tools like 'get_load_balancer' (for a specific load balancer) or 'list_network_load_balancers' (for a different load balancer type), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists log groups but lacks details on permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or pagination, which are important for a list operation, making it minimally complete but with 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'compartment_id: OCID of the compartment to list log groups from.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description effectively explains it.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all log groups in a compartment.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('log groups'), and the scope ('in a compartment') is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_logs' or 'search_logs', which prevents a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_logs' or 'search_logs', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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