Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions (e.g., CreateJob vs. StartJob vs. GetJob), but there is some overlap in 'GetAll' and 'View' tools (e.g., GetAllUsers and ViewAllUsers) that could cause minor confusion. The descriptions help clarify, but the sheer number of tools makes disambiguation challenging despite generally clear boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., CreateJob, DeleteJob, GetJob), with minor deviations like 'BrowseCloudEntity' (verb_noun) and 'applyAgentPolicyConfiguration' (camelCase). Overall, the pattern is predictable and readable, though not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 328 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, even for a complex domain like Veeam backup management. This overwhelms agents and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. It feels heavy and unwieldy for practical use.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage for Veeam Backup & Replication, including backup, restore, replication, licensing, security, and cloud operations. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full workflows from creation to deletion and recovery across all supported platforms and scenarios.
Average 2.7/5 across 328 of 328 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or expected response format. This leaves critical operational context undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool with complex parameters, which reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what configuration backup settings are, how to structure the 'body' parameter, what the tool returns, or any side effects, making it insufficient for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The single parameter 'body' is an open-ended object with no guidance on expected properties or structure. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit configuration backup settings' restates the tool name 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Edit' and resource 'configuration backup settings', but lacks detail on what aspects are editable or how it differs from siblings like 'StartConfigBackup' or 'GetConfigBackupOptions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Sibling tools include 'GetConfigBackupOptions' (likely for reading settings) and 'StartConfigBackup' (likely for initiating backups), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it does not indicate whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as 'switchover' implies a permanent change), what permissions are required, any rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., commits a recovery mount to production). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about critical behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient in length, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic intent, but it lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Azure VM recovery with two parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of annotations, schema descriptions, or output schema—failing to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters. This leaves the agent unable to operate the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two parameters ('mountId' and 'body') that are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'mountId' refers to (e.g., an existing recovery mount session) or what the 'body' object should contain. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start switchover to Azure' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name without specifying what 'switchover' entails or what resource it operates on. While it implies a verb ('Start') and a target ('Azure'), it lacks specificity about the action (e.g., what is being switched over, such as a VM recovery mount) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a mounted recovery session), exclusions, or related tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (which likely sets up the mount) or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' (which might be a different recovery action). Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex parameter (nested object), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or return values, making it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The single parameter 'body' is an object with unspecified properties, but the description doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., entity ID, filters, options). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get cloud virtual machines from a cloud entity' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('cloud virtual machines'), but it's vague about what 'Get' means (list, retrieve details, fetch metadata?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'BrowseCloudEntity' or 'GetAllInventoryHosts'. It's slightly better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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., 'BrowseCloudEntity', 'GetAllInventoryHosts'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Export') without detailing output format, security implications, permissions required, or side effects. For a tool that likely handles sensitive credentials, this lack of transparency is inadequate and potentially risky.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by a nested parameter object, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what 'export' entails, how credentials are handled, or what the result looks like, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The input schema includes a nested 'body' object with unspecified properties, but the description doesn't explain what 'body' should contain, such as filters, formats, or options for exporting credentials. This leaves parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export credentials records' restates the tool name 'ExportCredentials' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the action ('Export') and resource ('credentials records'), but lacks detail on scope, format, or destination. Compared to sibling tools like 'ExportCloudCredentials' or 'ImportCredentials', it doesn't differentiate itself clearly, making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 exclusions. With siblings like 'ExportCloudCredentials' and 'ImportCredentials' present, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Export' implies a read operation that generates output, but the description doesn't indicate whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes (file, JSON, etc.), whether it's a one-time or recurring operation, or any rate limits. For a tool handling sensitive encryption passwords, this lack of behavioral context is particularly problematic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, there's absolutely no wasted language or redundant phrasing. Every word carries meaning, and the structure is straightforward with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of handling encryption passwords, the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is woefully inadequate. It provides minimal context for what should be a sensitive operation with specific requirements and behaviors. The description doesn't address format, scope, security implications, or usage patterns that would be essential for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description provides zero information about what the 'body' parameter should contain, what properties it expects, or what format is required. For a tool with a nested object parameter that's completely undocumented in the schema, the description fails to compensate at all for this coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export encryption passwords' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('Export') and resource ('encryption passwords'), but lacks specificity about what format the export takes, where it goes, or what scope it covers. While it distinguishes from obvious non-export siblings, it doesn't differentiate from similar export tools like 'ExportCloudCredentials' or 'ExportCredentials'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling export tools (ExportCloudCredentials, ExportCredentials, ExportJobs, ExportManagedServers, ExportProxies, ExportRepositories), but no indication of when this specific encryption password export is appropriate versus those other exports. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 fails to describe what 'export' does (e.g., file generation, API response, data format), whether it's read-only or has side effects, permissions required, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return, failing to compensate for missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with 1 parameter ('body') that is a nested object with no documented properties. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., repository IDs, export options, filters), leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export repository configurations' states a basic purpose but is vague about what 'export' entails (e.g., format, destination, scope) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ExportCredentials' or 'ExportJobs'. It's slightly better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., 'ExportRepositories' vs. 'ExportCredentials'), prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without any details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get all protection groups.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what protection groups are, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. This leaves critical gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't mention filtering, pagination, or any usage context. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all protection groups' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'protection groups', but lacks any meaningful distinction from sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' (singular) or context about what protection groups are. The purpose is stated but overly simplistic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for listing vs. filtering), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' or 'GetAllInventoryPGs'. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read or write operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing records), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves sensitive credential data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving credentials import), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like input format, security implications, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a complex 'body' parameter with nested objects and additional properties. The description adds no information about parameter semantics, expected structure, or examples, failing to compensate 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import cloud credentials records' restates the tool name 'ImportCloudCredentials' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'import' and resource 'cloud credentials records', but lacks detail on what this entails compared to siblings like 'ImportCredentials' or 'CreateCloudCreds', failing to distinguish its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 such as 'CreateCloudCreds' or 'ImportCredentials'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The single sentence lacks any transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While under-specified, it's not verbose or repetitive. Every word contributes to the core meaning without waste, making it front-loaded and efficient in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and involves nested objects (indicating complexity), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'credentials records' are, how to format the input, what the tool does beyond the verb, or what to expect as a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'body'. It doesn't explain what the body should contain, its structure, format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import credentials records' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Import' and resource 'credentials records', but lacks detail about what 'credentials records' are or how they differ from similar tools like 'ImportCloudCredentials' or 'CreateCreds'. This is borderline tautological with the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ImportCloudCredentials', 'CreateCreds', or 'ChangePasswordForCreds'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Import' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing passwords, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a likely state-changing operation (import), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover usage, parameters, behavior, or outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with 1 parameter ('body') that is a nested object with no documented properties. The description adds no information about parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., file data, JSON structure, password entries). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import encryption passwords' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Import' and resource 'encryption passwords', but lacks specificity about what import entails (e.g., from where, in what format, to what destination). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ImportCloudCredentials' or 'ImportCredentials', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., after creating encryption passwords, for backup systems), or exclusions. Siblings include 'CreateEncryptionPassword', 'ChangeEncryptionPassword', and 'ExportEncryptionPasswords', but no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing configurations), rate limits, or error handling, making it inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (importing configurations with a nested object parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context on behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it inadequate for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what the 'body' object should contain, its structure, or example values, leaving the parameter completely undocumented and unusable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import managed server configurations' restates the tool name 'ImportManagedServers' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'import' and resource 'managed server configurations', but lacks detail on what configurations are or how they're imported, failing to distinguish from siblings like 'ImportCloudCredentials' or 'ImportJobs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after exporting configurations), or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on its appropriate application among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Import repository configurations' implies a write operation that creates or updates repository settings, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing configurations, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and economy of words, it is optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'import' entails, what data format is expected, what the outcome is, or how it differs from related tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description adds no information about what 'body' should contain, its structure, or examples of valid configurations. For a tool with a nested object parameter and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import repository configurations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ImportRepositories'. It doesn't specify what 'import' means in this context (e.g., from what source, with what effect), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'ImportCredentials' or 'ImportJobs' that follow similar naming patterns. The purpose is vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for importing various configurations (e.g., 'ImportCredentials', 'ImportJobs'), but no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be chosen. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, if it's asynchronous, rate limits, or what happens during migration. 'Start' implies an initiation but gives no details on execution or outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Start FCD disk migration.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (migration operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, or expected results, failing to provide necessary context for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with 2 parameters (mountId and body) undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what mountId refers to or what the body object should contain, leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start FCD disk migration' states a verb ('Start') and resource ('FCD disk migration'), but it's vague about what 'FCD' means (likely VMware First Class Disks) and lacks specificity on the migration context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdMountWithSession' or 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdDismountWithSession', leaving the exact purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., after mounting), or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it among related recovery tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's asynchronous, or what side effects occur (e.g., mounting a disk). The term 'Start' implies an initiation but lacks details on execution flow or outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Start instant FCD recovery.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but it meets the criteria for conciseness by being minimal and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (inferred from the name involving VMware FCD and sessions), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does in detail, how to use it, what parameters are needed, or what to expect, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with unspecified properties. The description provides no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., recovery target, session details, or configuration), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start instant FCD recovery' states a general action but lacks specificity about what 'FCD' refers to (likely VMware First Class Disks) and what 'recovery' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdDismountWithSession' or 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdMigrateWithSession', making it a vague purpose statement rather than a clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., after a failure), or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdDismountWithSession' for dismounting, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Start' but doesn't disclose if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. For a tool with 'switchover' in its name—implying potential disruption—this is a critical omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain behavior, parameters, or context, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 no meaning for the two parameters ('mountId' and 'body'), leaving them completely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to or what the 'body' object should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start file share switchover' states a verb ('Start') and resource ('file share switchover'), but it's vague about what 'switchover' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMigrate'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 siblings like 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMigrate' and 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount', the description offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Register' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'body'. It doesn't explain what data should be in the body object, its structure, or purpose, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register the backup server on My Account Portal' states a verb ('Register') and resource ('backup server'), but is vague about what 'My Account Portal' refers to and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the registration scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 for configuration and management, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or context for registration, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error conditions. The vague 'Add' implies creation but lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a mount server is, what the 'body' parameter expects, or what the operation returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 'body' as an open-ended object. The description provides no information about what properties 'body' should contain, their semantics, or examples, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new mount server' restates the tool name 'SetupMountServer' with minimal variation, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what a 'mount server' is or what 'adding' entails, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'CreateManagedServer' or 'UpdateMountServer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or context for adding a mount server, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'GetAllMountServers' or 'UpdateMountServer' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Edit' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if the operation fails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being severely under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no usage instructions. For a tool that presumably modifies system configuration, this level of documentation is dangerously insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') that's a complex nested object. The description provides zero information about what parameters this tool accepts or what the 'body' object should contain. It doesn't mention any specific fields, formats, or requirements for the event forwarding settings being edited. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is impossible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit event forwarding settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateEventForwardingSettings'. It provides a generic verb ('Edit') and resource ('event forwarding settings') but lacks specificity about what aspect of settings can be edited or what the tool actually accomplishes operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'UpdateEmailSettings' that might also modify configuration settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (like 'GetEventForwardingSettings' which appears in the sibling list). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what conditions must be met before invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation operation but fails to describe critical traits: whether this requires administrative permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., license invalidation), or typical response formats. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update the Veeam license'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic purpose, but it lacks necessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 1 nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the missing structured data: no parameter details, no behavioral context, no usage guidelines, and no output information. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies critical licensing data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameter semantics—it does not explain what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., license key, expiration date, features), expected formats, or examples. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the Veeam license' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'UpdateLicense' with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('Veeam license'), it lacks specificity about what aspects of the license can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'InstallLicense', 'RemoveLicense', or 'RenewInstalledLicense'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing license to update), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'InstallLicense' (for new licenses) or 'RenewInstalledLicense' (for renewal). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting ongoing recoveries), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that updates settings—a potentially impactful mutation—this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action. While this brevity contributes to clarity, it also reflects severe under-specification, but as per scoring rules, conciseness is about efficiency, not completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, and offers no parameter guidance. For a tool that likely modifies recovery-related settings, this omission could lead to misuse or errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('mountId' and 'body') that are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or examples of valid values. For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, this leaves parameters completely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update file share switchover settings' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It provides a basic verb ('Update') and resource ('file share switchover settings'), but lacks specificity about what 'switchover settings' entail or how this differs from similar tools like 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataShareSwitchover'. This is borderline tautological, as it essentially repeats the name without meaningful expansion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'GetUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' (likely for retrieval) and 'InstantUnstructuredDataShareSwitchover' (likely for execution), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap. Users are left without any indication of appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. The term 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, but no details are given, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature implied by 'delete', no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address safety, parameters, outcomes, or integration with sibling tools, failing to provide a usable context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., token identifier format or source), leaving the single required parameter undocumented. This fails to bridge the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a recovery token' restates the tool name with minimal expansion, making it tautological. While it identifies the action (delete) and resource (recovery token), it lacks specificity about what a recovery token is or its context, offering no differentiation from sibling tools like DeleteBackup or DeleteCreds 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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., token existence), consequences, or related tools like CreateComputerRecoveryToken or GetComputerRecoveryToken, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether enabling is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects running jobs or data, or what the expected outcome is. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Enable'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meaning, or expected results, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about the 'id' parameter—what it represents, how to obtain it, or its format. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable a protection group' restates the tool name 'EnableProtectionGroup' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'enabling' entails operationally or what a 'protection group' is in this context, leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Sibling tools include 'DisableProtectionGroup' and 'CreateProtectionGroup', but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for enabling versus creating or disabling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Export') without explaining what this entails—such as output format, security implications, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only or destructive operation. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool that likely handles sensitive credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of handling cloud credentials, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address security, output, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain, its structure, or any constraints, failing to compensate 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export cloud credentials records' restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It specifies the resource ('cloud credentials records') and the action ('Export'), but lacks specificity about what 'Export' entails (e.g., format, destination, scope) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ExportCredentials' or 'ExportEncryptionPasswords', making it vague and tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'ExportCredentials'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read or write operation (likely a write given 'Import'), what permissions are required, if it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning about parameters, such as what 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration data format, source). It fails 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import backup proxy configurations' states a verb ('Import') and resource ('backup proxy configurations'), but it's vague about what 'import' entails (e.g., from a file, API, or system) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ImportCloudCredentials' or 'ImportJobs'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without details on effects, permissions required, whether it's destructive or read-only, rate limits, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely triggers system-wide operations, this lack of transparency is inadequate and could lead to misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Rescan all replicas.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by a tool that scans all replicas, the description is severely incomplete. No annotations, output schema, or detailed parameters are provided, and the description doesn't explain what 'rescan' does, what triggers it, or what results to expect. For a potentially impactful operation, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'body' should contain or if it's optional. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rescan all replicas' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Rescan') and resource ('replicas'), but lacks detail about what 'rescan' entails or which replicas are targeted. Compared to siblings like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanProtectionGroup', it doesn't differentiate scope or context, making it vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Sibling tools include various rescan operations (e.g., 'RescanAllManagedServers', 'RescanProtectionGroup'), but the description doesn't specify if this tool is for all replicas globally, after changes, or in specific scenarios. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit a recovery token' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description provides essentially no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Edit a recovery token'), which is appropriately sized for such a simple statement. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, two required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a recovery token is, what fields can be edited, what permissions are needed, or what happens after the update. The context demands much more information than this minimal description provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters (id and body), and the tool description adds no information about parameter meaning or usage. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., token identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., which token properties can be updated). With two required parameters and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a recovery token' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'UpdateComputerRecoveryToken' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses the generic verb 'Edit' instead of clarifying what kind of update operation this performs on a recovery token, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'CreateComputerRecoveryToken' or other update tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing token ID), when this tool is appropriate compared to creating or deleting tokens, or any context about recovery token management. With many sibling tools including create and delete operations for recovery tokens, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Edit a protection group' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether the edit is destructive or reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Edit a protection group.'). While this brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal clarity, it's technically efficient with zero wasted words. The structure is simple and direct, though it lacks the depth needed for proper tool understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with nested object parameters), complete absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what can be edited, how to structure the edit request, what the response contains, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in this context, the description fails to provide the necessary completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (id and body), and the tool description provides no information about them. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (protection group identifier) or what 'body' should contain (the editable fields/properties). For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a protection group' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateProtectionGroup'. While it indicates the action (edit/update) and resource (protection group), it lacks specificity about what aspects can be edited or how this differs from similar tools like 'UpdateJob' or 'UpdateManagedServer'. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools with 'Update' in their names (UpdateJob, UpdateManagedServer, UpdateProxy, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate what makes this tool specific to protection groups or when it should be chosen over other update operations. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It mentions 'switch over to production' which implies a mutation or state change, but fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The description is too brief to offer any meaningful behavioral context, leaving the agent uninformed about risks or operational impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it lacks essential details that would make it helpful, such as the target resource or operational context. The structure is simple but does not front-load critical information, resulting in a description that is brief yet insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving snapshot replicas and production switching), the description is severely incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, it fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct use. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent without information on what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure or purpose. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what the 'body' should contain (e.g., identifiers, configuration options) or how to format it. Given the low schema coverage and lack of compensatory details in the description, it fails to clarify parameter semantics, making invocation challenging.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Switch over to production after failback' is vague and tautological, as it essentially restates the tool name 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaSwitchToProduction' without specifying what resource or system it acts upon. It mentions 'production' and 'failback' but lacks concrete details like whether this applies to virtual machines, snapshots, or specific infrastructure components, making it unclear compared to siblings like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., after a failback operation), exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent with no information on appropriate usage scenarios. Without such details, it fails to help distinguish it from related tools in the sibling list, such as 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Change') without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as it modifies security credentials), potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves critical safety and operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a security-related mutation tool), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one nested), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The input schema has two required parameters ('id' and 'body'), but the description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., password identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., new password value, confirmation). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change an encryption password value' states a clear verb ('Change') and resource ('encryption password value'), but it's vague about what specifically is being changed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateEncryptionPassword' (which appears in the list), leaving ambiguity about whether this is a different operation or a duplicate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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., existing encryption password), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'CreateEncryptionPassword' or 'UpdateEncryptionPassword', making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get all task sessions') but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles large datasets (e.g., pagination via skip/limit parameters), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with four parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get all task sessions'), though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place, but the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with four parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'task sessions' are, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has four parameters (skip, limit, stateFilter, resultFilter) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning none have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters, their purposes, valid values (e.g., what stateFilter or resultFilter accept), or how they affect the retrieval. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all task sessions across all sessions' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetAllTaskSessions' with minor elaboration. It doesn't specify what a 'task session' is or what resource it operates on, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetSessionTaskSessionsWithFiltering' that appear related. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetSessionTaskSessionsWithFiltering', leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among potentially overlapping retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Modify', implying a mutation operation, but fails to specify critical details: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or scheduled, potential side effects (e.g., disrupting ongoing analyses), or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool name, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and nested objects in the schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what modifications are possible, the parameter structure, expected outcomes, or error handling. This leaves the agent ill-equipped to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The description does not mention parameters at all, offering no insight into what the 'body' should contain (e.g., schedule configuration fields like 'frequency', 'time', 'enabled'). With low schema coverage and no compensatory information, the agent lacks essential guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Modify the Security & Compliance Analyzer schedule' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Modify' and the resource 'Security & Compliance Analyzer schedule', but lacks detail on what aspects can be modified (e.g., frequency, timing, enable/disable) and how it differs from siblings like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer'. This is a tautological expansion of the name, not a clear, distinct purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' (for viewing) or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' (for execution). Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('change') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one nested), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what service account mode is, what changes are possible, or any behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (id and body). The description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to or what 'body' should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change service account mode for a user' restates the tool name 'ChangeServiceAccountMode' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('service account mode') and target ('a user') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'change' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeAccount' or 'ChangePasswordForCreds'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without details on permissions required, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what the operation entails (e.g., if it mounts a VM temporarily). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Azure VM recovery), no annotations, a schema with 0% coverage, no output schema, and a vague description, it is severely incomplete. The agent lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with no defined properties. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain, such as VM identifiers, recovery settings, or Azure configuration, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start Instant Recovery') and target ('to Microsoft Azure'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Instant Recovery' entails compared to sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount', lacking specificity on the exact operation (e.g., mounting a VM for recovery vs. migrating it).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('change switchover time'), with no information about permissions required, whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, rate limits, side effects, or what happens after invocation. For a tool that likely modifies system settings, this lack of transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 target, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (likely a mutation tool affecting system behavior), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about usage, parameters, behavior, or differentiation, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The description mentions 'switchover time' but doesn't explain what the 'body' parameter should contain (e.g., time values, format, units) or how to structure it. It adds minimal semantic context beyond the parameter name, insufficient to compensate for the poor schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change switchover time for replica failback' clearly states the action (change) and target (switchover time for replica failback), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings', which also appear to modify switchover settings for different recovery scenarios. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, context (e.g., during failback operations), or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various switchover-related tools (e.g., for Azure, VMware, unstructured data), there's no indication of which scenarios this tool applies to, making it misleadingly generic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Add'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the resource being created, parameter requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description does not add any meaning about parameters—it does not explain what 'body' should contain, its structure, or required fields. This fails 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new protection group' states a basic verb+resource but is tautological with the tool name 'CreateProtectionGroup' (create/add are synonyms). It lacks specificity about what a protection group is or what it protects, and does not distinguish from siblings like 'CreateJob' or 'CreateRepository' 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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'UpdateProtectionGroup' or 'DeleteProtectionGroup' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Disable' implies a state change that likely requires specific permissions and may affect backup operations, but the description doesn't mention any of this—such as whether it's destructive, requires admin rights, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling toolset that includes similar actions (delete/enable/update), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what disabling entails, the prerequisites, the outcome, or how it differs from other tools, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description adds no information about what 'id' represents (e.g., protection group identifier format, where to find it, or examples). While the parameter count is low, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent guessing about proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disable a protection group' clearly states the action (disable) and target resource (protection group), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'disable' means operationally or how it differs from sibling tools like DeleteProtectionGroup or EnableProtectionGroup, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 DeleteProtectionGroup, EnableProtectionGroup, and UpdateProtectionGroup available, there's no indication of whether disabling is reversible, temporary, or has different consequences than deletion. This absence of context makes it misleading for an agent trying to choose between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format is, or if there are rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list of sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving sessions, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('skip' and 'limit'), and the description adds no information about them. It doesn't explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the session retrieval, leaving them completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all automation import/export sessions' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('automation import/export sessions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetAutomationSession', leaving the scope vague regarding what makes these sessions specific to automation import/export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for automation sessions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetAutomationSession', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, what the default settings are, whether changes are reversible, or if there are rate limits. It mentions no behavioral traits beyond the basic edit action, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Edit notification settings.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand what to edit, how to structure inputs, or what to expect, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details about its structure. The description adds no information about what properties 'body' should contain, what notification settings are editable, or examples of valid inputs. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit notification settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateNotificationsSettings'. It provides a generic verb ('Edit') and resource ('notification settings'), but lacks specificity about what aspects can be edited or how this differs from sibling tools like 'UpdateEmailSettings' or 'UpdateEventForwardingSettings' that also manage notification-related configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that handle notification-related updates (e.g., 'UpdateEmailSettings', 'UpdateEventForwardingSettings'), but the description doesn't clarify the scope, prerequisites, or distinctions between them, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'start a quick backup', which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's asynchronous, potential impacts on VMs, or error handling. The description lacks critical details for a mutation tool, making it insufficient for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and constraint. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'quick backup' is, what the input requires, or what the output might be. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what the 'body' should contain (e.g., VM identifiers, backup settings). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start a quick backup') and target resource ('VMware vSphere VMs'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it's vague about what 'quick backup' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StartJob' or 'CreateJob', which might also initiate backups. It avoids tautology by specifying the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by noting this is 'without creating a full job', implying a distinction from job-based backups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'StartJob' or under what conditions (e.g., ad-hoc vs. scheduled). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation operation ('Add or edit') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 target, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like parameter meanings, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'helper appliance' and 'cloud credentials record', hinting at the 'id' and 'body' parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., what 'id' refers to, what fields 'body' should contain). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Add or edit') and target ('helper appliance for a cloud credentials record'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what a 'helper appliance' is or how it differs from similar tools like 'CreateCloudCreds' or 'GetAllCredsHelperAppliancesWithFiltering', making it vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cloud credentials record), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'DeleteCloudCredsHelperApplianceAsync' or 'GetCloudCredsHelperAppliance', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, rate limits, or the response format. The description is minimal and misses critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation/mutation tool with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a backup proxy is, what data 'body' requires, or what the tool returns, leaving too many gaps for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'body' should contain, such as required fields like proxy name, type, or configuration. This leaves parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new backup proxy' clearly states the action (add) and resource (backup proxy), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EnableProxy' or 'UpdateProxy', leaving ambiguity about when to create versus enable or update an existing proxy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'EnableProxy' and 'UpdateProxy' available, the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, when creation is appropriate versus enabling an existing proxy, or what happens if a proxy already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions enabling a mode but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, return values, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely performs a significant configuration change.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., extent identifier) or what 'body' should contain, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Enable sealed mode') and target ('on a SOBR extent'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'sealed mode' entails or how it differs from related operations like 'DisableScaleOutExtentSealedMode' or 'EnableScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode' among siblings, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does without context, failing to help an agent decide when to invoke it over other tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions restoration to 'original or another location', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like permissions needed, data overwriting risks, or whether it's reversible. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a restoration tool likely involving data mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying location options, failing to explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., source, destination, settings). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Restore') and resource ('an entire file share'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'file share' is in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataOSRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to unstructured data and recovery (e.g., 'EntireUnstructuredDataOSRestore', 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount'), the description lacks context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, if it has side effects (e.g., caching), or what the output format might be. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output details, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (skip and limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The tool description adds no information about these parameters, such as their roles in pagination or filtering, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get available Linux agent packages' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Linux agent packages), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., downloadable, installable versions) or distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'GetAllAgentPackagesForUnix', making it somewhat vague rather than fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'GetAllAgentPackagesForUnix' or other retrieval tools in the list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by skip/limit params but not explained), error conditions, or what 'helper appliances' entail. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 purpose, though it could be more structured by explicitly addressing parameters or usage context. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, return values, and tool context. For a data retrieval tool with filtering capabilities, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'cloud credentials record' which loosely relates to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'id' represents, its format, or purpose. It ignores 'skip' and 'limit' entirely, leaving three parameters undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all helper appliances for a cloud credentials record' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (helper appliances), but it's vague about scope and filtering. It doesn't specify what 'all' means in context or how filtering works, and while it mentions 'cloud credentials record,' it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar 'GetAll' tools in the sibling list (e.g., GetAllCloudCreds, GetAllCreds).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing a valid cloud credentials ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like GetCloudCredsHelperAppliance. 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.
Behavior1/5
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 fails to describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list, pagination), or any side effects. The description adds no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's purpose, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The input schema includes a 'body' parameter with nested objects, but the description doesn't explain what this parameter does (e.g., filtering options, request body content). This leaves parameters undocumented and unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all protection groups' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('protection groups'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' (singular) or 'GetAllProtectionGroups' (plural form with same name).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' (singular retrieval) or 'GetInventoryForPG' (inventory-focused).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get all associated backend services' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, its rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral context for a tool with 5 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the parameter complexity. There's no waste, but it may be overly concise for the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'backend services' are, how results are returned, or handle the undocumented parameters. For a list/query tool with filtering and ordering capabilities, this description lacks necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for 5 undocumented parameters. It adds no information about parameters like 'skip,' 'limit,' 'orderColumn,' 'orderAsc,' or 'nameFilter,' leaving their purpose, formats, or usage completely unclear. The description fails to provide any parameter semantics beyond the tool's general intent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get all associated backend services for integration with Veeam Backup & Replication,' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('backend services'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'backend services' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllManagedServers' or 'GetAllRepositories,' making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology but doesn't fully distinguish its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for 'integration,' or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'GetAllManagedServers'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader workflow. Usage is implied only by the name, lacking explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that likely accesses compliance results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including parameter or usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of compliance results retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'results' means (e.g., report, status, violations), how they're formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely returns structured compliance data, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema doesn't explain what these parameters do. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't mention pagination, result filtering, or how skip/limit affect the compliance results retrieval.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get Security & Compliance Analyzer results (best practices compliance)' which clearly indicates it retrieves compliance results. However, it doesn't specify what type of results (e.g., report, status, details) or how they're presented, and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSession' or 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' that might relate to the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, timing (e.g., after running a scan), or differentiate it from other 'Get' tools in the sibling list that might retrieve related compliance or security data, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Get credentials' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose if this is safe, requires specific permissions, involves rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive authorization data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity implied by the context. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks elaboration that might aid understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (involving device code authorization and Entra ID restore), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what credentials are retrieved, how they're used, or any behavioral nuances. The description alone leaves too many open questions for effective tool invocation in a security-sensitive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain, such as device code details, tenant identifiers, or other required fields. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose and format completely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get credentials after device code authorization for Entra ID restore' which provides a verb ('Get credentials') and resource context ('Entra ID restore'), but it's vague about what specific credentials are retrieved and how they relate to the device code flow. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode' or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore', leaving ambiguity about its exact role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it follows device code authorization, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'RequestAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' suggest related functionality, but no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. There's no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, differentiate from siblings, describe the return format, or provide behavioral context. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no structured support, the description should do more to compensate, but it remains minimal and inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage in the schema, meaning they are completely undocumented. The description provides no information about these parameters, their purpose, or how they affect the results. It doesn't mention pagination, default values, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about socket license consumption' states the general purpose (retrieving license data) but is vague about what specific information is returned. It doesn't specify whether this returns current usage, historical data, allocation details, or license types. The verb 'Get' is generic, and 'socket license consumption' is the resource but lacks specificity about the scope or format of the information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity' and 'GetLicensedInstances', but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those or indicate any prerequisites, context, or specific use cases. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other license-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves logs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more structured by including key details like parameter hints, but as a standalone statement, it's concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral traits, or output format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. For a log retrieval tool with pagination parameters, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (id, skip, limit) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a session ID), what 'skip' and 'limit' control (e.g., pagination), or their expected formats. This fails to compensate 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get logs for a SureBackup scan task session'), which is clear but generic. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('logs'), but doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'GetSessionLogs' or 'GetTaskSessionLogs', which also retrieve logs. The description is adequate but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., after a scan session), or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'GetSessionLogs' and 'GetTaskSessionLogs' present, the absence of comparative usage advice is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how logs are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is inadequate for a tool with potential security or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all parameters undocumented. The description mentions 'a specific session' which hints at the 'id' parameter but doesn't explain its format or source. It ignores 'skip' and 'limit' entirely, failing to compensate for the schema gap, which is critical for pagination or filtering behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the log entries for a specific session' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('log entries for a specific session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSession' (which likely retrieves session metadata) or 'GetAutomationSessionLogs' (which appears to target automation sessions), leaving the scope vague regarding what type of session it applies to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'GetSession', 'GetAutomationSessionLogs', 'GetTaskSessionLogs'), there's no indication of which sessions are eligible, prerequisites, or distinctions between similar logging tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 purpose, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between sessions and task sessions, the return format, error handling, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns a list of items with pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It mentions 'specific session' which loosely maps to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'id' represents, the purpose of 'skip' and 'limit', or their expected formats. This leaves all three parameters undocumented beyond their schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get task sessions for a specific session' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('task sessions'), but it's vague about what 'task sessions' are and how they relate to the 'specific session'. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetAllTaskSessions' or 'GetTaskSession', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllTaskSessions' or 'GetTaskSession'. The description implies filtering by session ID, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (e.g., commits migration), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The term 'Start migrating' implies an ongoing process but lacks clarity on completion or outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (migration operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and integration with sibling tools, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'mountId' or 'body' represent, their formats, or required content (e.g., migration target settings). This leaves both parameters entirely undocumented, failing to add any semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start migrating') and target resource ('Hyper-V instant recovery VM'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what migration entails (e.g., to production, to another host) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMount' or 'InstantHvVMRecoveryUnmount', making it vague about the specific operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a mount first), exclusions, or related tools like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMount' for setup, leaving the agent with no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Start' implying an asynchronous or initiating action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This leaves critical operational context missing for a migration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Start' and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for a tool name that already hints at the domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (migration operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed behavior, leaving too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to or what the 'body' object should contain, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves both parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start file share migration') and resource ('to the original or another location'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what exactly is being migrated (unstructured data recovery mounts) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataShareSwitchover', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for migration after a recovery mount, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. Sibling tools suggest related operations (mount, unmount, switchover), but no comparison or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool marks objects as 'clean', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on backup integrity), or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose from context) to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with a nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use. More context is needed to compensate for missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The description mentions 'specific backup objects' but doesn't explain how to identify them in the 'body' parameter (e.g., IDs, names, formats). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying parameter usage, leaving it ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Mark specific backup objects as clean (no malware)', which includes a verb ('Mark'), resource ('backup objects'), and outcome ('clean (no malware)'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'clean' means operationally and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'CreateSuspiciousActivityEvent' or 'StartMalwareBackupScan', which may relate to malware handling. The purpose is clear but could be more distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., after a malware scan), exclusions, or related tools like 'DeleteBackupObject' or 'StartMalwareBackupScan'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a significant mutation operation ('restore') but doesn't detail critical aspects such as required permissions, whether it's destructive to existing data, expected duration, rate limits, or what happens upon completion. This is a major gap for a high-impact tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a restore operation with potential high impact), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter requirements, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The description adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., backup ID, tenant details, restore options), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start Microsoft Entra ID tenant restore') and the source ('from a copy backup'), which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact nature of the restore process and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' (without 'FromCopy'), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, conditions for use, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' for context, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does (scanning) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, how long scans take, or what happens to scan results. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though the communication itself is incomplete. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a malware scanning operation, no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter schema with 0% coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what happens during execution, or how to configure the scan. For a security tool that likely produces important findings, this leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema documentation. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' object should contain, or how to specify scanning targets, antivirus settings, or YARA rules. With low schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, users cannot understand how to invoke this tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scan backup data with antivirus software or YARA rules' clearly states the action (scan) and target (backup data) with specific scanning methods mentioned. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' or 'GetYaraRules' that might involve similar scanning functionality, leaving the specific scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions scanning methods but doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this differs from other security-related tools in the sibling list like 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' or 'MarkBackupObjectsAsClean'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., downtime during switchover), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that likely modifies recovery settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks any supporting details, which could be seen as under-specified rather than optimally structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Azure recovery operations with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool in a critical recovery context. More information is needed to adequately guide usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters: 'mountId' (string) and 'body' (object with additionalProperties). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to (e.g., an existing recovery mount session) or what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., specific switchover settings like network configuration). Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update settings for switchover to Azure' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('settings for switchover to Azure'), which gives a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly these settings control (e.g., network, storage, failover parameters) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., requiring an existing mount or switchover session), exclusions, or related tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' for retrieval. Without such context, users must 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.
Behavior2/5
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 edits settings, implying mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a nested object parameter 'body' with unspecified properties. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'body' should contain, examples of general options, or format details. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Edit[s] general options/settings of Veeam Backup & Replication,' which provides a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('general options/settings'). However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'general options' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' or 'UpdateEmailSettings,' leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over other update-related siblings, such as 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' or 'UpdateEmailSettings,' leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or usage context, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'backup proxy configuration' but doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' represent, what fields 'body' accepts, or format requirements. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a backup proxy configuration' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (backup proxy configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what specifically gets edited. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateProxy' or 'DisableProxy', which handle different lifecycle states of proxies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateProxy' or 'DisableProxy'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing proxy ID) or contextual constraints, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential impact on network traffic, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'edit' entails, parameter usage, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no details about parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., rule IDs, fields to update, format), leaving parameters undocumented and unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit network traffic rules' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (network traffic rules), but it's vague about what specific aspects are editable and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'GetAllTrafficRules' or other update tools. It's functional but not specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., 'GetAllTrafficRules' for reading, 'UpdateTrafficRules' for editing), the description offers no context on prerequisites, when to apply changes, or what happens if used incorrectly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation (upgrade) but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites settings), rate limits, or expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure states). This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal clarity, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for reliable agent operation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the 'id' or 'body' parameters, such as what 'id' refers to (e.g., entity ID) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., upgrade settings). This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Upgrade Veeam Agent') and target ('on discovered entities'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'upgrade' entails (e.g., software version update, configuration change) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'InstallAgentOnDiscoveredEntities' or 'UninstallAgentFromDiscoveredEntities', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entities must be discovered first), conditions for upgrade, or refer to sibling tools like 'InstallAgentOnDiscoveredEntities' for installation versus upgrade scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what 'undo failback' entails operationally (e.g., is it destructive, does it require specific permissions, what are side effects, what happens to data). The description is too vague to inform safe or correct usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a complex name, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex operation ('undo failback'), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The single parameter 'body' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its structure and purpose completely unknown. The description doesn't compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Undo failback') and the resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailover', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. It's a bare statement of purpose with no usage instructions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a write operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. It mentions 'latency settings' but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter's structure or required fields, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Add') and target ('latency settings for a specific datastore'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'latency settings' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings', missing specific scope distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a datastore must exist, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' for modifications, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies licensing state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with one parameter ('instanceId'), and the description adds no information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what an 'instanceId' represents, its format, or how it relates to the 'workload' mentioned, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Assign') and target ('instance license to a workload'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'instance license' or 'workload' means in this context, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'RemoveInstanceLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense' beyond the opposite action direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., license availability, workload eligibility), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'RemoveInstanceLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stops publishing/unmounts, implying a destructive mutation that likely requires specific permissions and affects system state, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the machine (e.g., shutdown, deletion), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Stop publishing a machine to Azure (unmount).' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for Azure VM recovery with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, error handling, and expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves critical recovery operations, this minimal description is inadequate and leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain the meaning of 'mountId' (likely an identifier for the mount to stop) or the purpose of the 'body' object (possibly additional configuration or options). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds no value beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop publishing a machine to Azure (unmount)' clearly states the action (stop publishing/unmount) and resource (a machine in Azure), but it's vague about the specific context (e.g., what 'publishing' entails, whether it's for recovery or testing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite operation, but lacks precision on the recovery aspect implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for stopping a mount operation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have an active mount), exclusions, or direct alternatives among siblings like 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate'. Usage is inferred from the action but not clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what format the contents are returned in, whether it's paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5
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. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'browsing' returns, how to interpret results, or provide any parameter context. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about vault contents, this leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions no parameters at all - not explaining what 'vaultId' represents, what the 'body' object is for, or their required formats. With 2 parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing about proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Browse the contents of a Veeam Data Cloud Vault' clearly states the action (browse) and target resource (Veeam Data Cloud Vault contents). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'BrowseCloudEntity' or 'BrowseCloudEntityVirtualMachines' - the specific scope or differences aren't explained, making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other browsing operations, the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Change'), but doesn't specify if this requires admin permissions, is reversible, has side effects (e.g., downtime), or involves rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating credentials with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It doesn't explain the 'id' (e.g., identifier of the cloud credentials record) or 'body' (e.g., new certificate details), leaving both parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Change') and the target ('certificate for a cloud credentials record'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of certificate (e.g., SSL/TLS, authentication) or how the change affects the system, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey' or 'ChangeKMServerCertificate' that handle similar credential modifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., existing cloud credentials), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'UpdateCloudCreds', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to source backups post-copy. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves data movement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to other scoring deficiencies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'copy backups' (likely a data migration operation), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what constitutes success/failure, return values, or operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with no defined properties. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about required input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Copy backups to another repository' clearly states the action (copy) and resource (backups), but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'backups' or 'repository' in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateRepository' or 'DeleteBackup', leaving the scope vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CloneJob' or 'CreateRepository'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new cloud credentials record' implies a write operation (creation), but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Add a new cloud credentials record.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter details, behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations. For a tool that creates cloud credentials—likely involving sensitive data and permissions—this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The tool description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention what fields 'body' should contain, example values, or format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new cloud credentials record' clearly states the action (add) and resource (cloud credentials record), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'CreateCreds' or 'UpdateCloudCreds', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateCreds' (likely for general credentials), 'UpdateCloudCreds' (for updates), and 'DeleteCloudCreds' (for removal), there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases. This leaves the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'add' implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the password is stored securely, if it overwrites existing passwords, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain parameter details, behavioral traits, and usage context to be complete for this type of operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. The input schema has one required parameter 'body' with an object type, but the description does not explain what properties 'body' should contain (e.g., password value, name, etc.). This fails 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new encryption password' clearly states the action (add) and resource (encryption password), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'DeleteEncryptionPassword'. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'encryption password' is in this context (e.g., for backups, credentials, etc.), making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'DeleteEncryptionPassword', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., existing encryption setup) or constraints. Usage is implied only by the verb 'add', but explicit context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or side effects like folder naming conflicts. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single but complex nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a nested 'body' object with unspecified properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a folder is created, failing to explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., folder name, path, metadata). This doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create') and resource ('new folder in cloud storage'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about specifics like which cloud storage system, parent location, or folder properties, and doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'CreateRepository' or 'CreateScaleOutRepository' that might involve cloud storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, such as whether it requires prior authentication or specific cloud credentials setup, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'CreateCloudCreds' that might be needed first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's asynchronous, what happens to existing recovery media, or any rate limits. The single sentence provides no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that appears to create recovery media (potentially a significant operation), the description is severely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, it leaves critical questions unanswered about the operation's nature, requirements, and outcomes. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, the description provides no additional semantic information about what the 'id' represents, its format, or how to obtain it. The description mentions 'specific backup object' which hints at the parameter's purpose but doesn't add meaningful details beyond what's minimally implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create recovery media') and the target resource ('for a specific backup object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'CreateDeploymentKit' or 'CreateComputerRecoveryToken' that also create recovery-related artifacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It doesn't mention what 'recovery media' entails or when this operation is appropriate compared to other recovery tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a creation/mutation operation ('Add a new'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested object parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a Scale-Out Backup Repository is, what inputs are needed, or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration fields like name, extent settings, performance tier), leaving parameters completely undocumented. This fails 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new Scale-Out Backup Repository' clearly states the action (add) and resource (Scale-Out Backup Repository), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateRepository' or explain what makes a 'Scale-Out' repository distinct, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateRepository' or 'UpdateScaleOutRepository', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this triggers alerts or notifications, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create') and resource ('manual malware event entry'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool creating security events), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure the input, when to use it versus alternatives, or any behavioral implications. The description alone is inadequate for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what the 'body' object should contain, what fields are expected, or what data constitutes a 'manual malware event entry'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a manual malware event entry' clearly states the action (create) and resource (manual malware event entry), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'malware event entry' in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' or 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent', which are clearly related but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' (for viewing) and 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (for retrieving a specific event), there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus querying existing events. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Add' (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter details, behavioral context, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no information about the single parameter 'body'. It doesn't explain what properties 'body' should contain, their semantics, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Add') and resource ('unstructured data source'), which clarifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what an 'unstructured data source' entails or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'CreateRepository' or 'CreateCloudCreds', leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for creating resources (e.g., 'CreateRepository', 'CreateCloudCreds'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Restore' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing VMs, rate limits, or what the restore process entails (e.g., from backup, point-in-time). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, earning its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a VM restore operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage with 1 undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'body' should contain (e.g., VM ID, restore point, target location). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restore an entire VMware vSphere VM' clearly states the action (restore) and target (VMware vSphere VM), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'entire' entails (e.g., full VM vs. files) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'EntireVmRestoreCloudDirector' or 'EntireVmRestoreHv', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'EntireVmRestoreCloudDirector' or 'EntireVmRestoreHv', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for restoration. The description implies usage for VMware vSphere VMs but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, the output format beyond 'JSON specification', rate limits, or side effects. 'Export' could imply read-only, but this isn't confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single but complex parameter (nested object), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely exports data with configurable inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with one parameter ('body') of type object with no described properties. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., filter criteria, job IDs, export settings). This fails 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export jobs to a JSON specification' clearly states the action (export) and target (jobs), but it's vague about scope (which jobs? all jobs? filtered?) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ExportCredentials' or 'ExportManagedServers'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating jobs), or compare to siblings like 'ImportJobs' or 'GetAllJobs'. The description offers no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Export' which implies a read-only operation likely generating output, but it doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what the output contains (e.g., file format, data scope), or any side effects like rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configurations' entail, how to use the 'body' parameter, or what the export produces. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no structured guidance, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, such as what 'body' should contain (e.g., filters, options for the export). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export managed server configurations' clearly states the action (export) and resource (managed server configurations), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'configurations' include or the output format, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling export tools like ExportCloudCredentials or ExportJobs, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other export tools (e.g., ExportCredentials, ExportJobs) or related tools like GetAllManagedServers. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export' suggests a read-only operation that outputs data, but the description doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the export is in (e.g., file, JSON), whether it's destructive to existing data, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Export backup proxy configurations.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool, though this conciseness may come at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'proxy configurations' entail, how the export is delivered, or what the 'body' parameter is for. For a tool that likely outputs configuration data, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially with no structured fields to fill the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention 'body' or what it should contain (e.g., filter criteria, output format preferences). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export backup proxy configurations' clearly states the action (export) and resource (backup proxy configurations), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ExportCloudCredentials', 'ExportCredentials', or 'ExportJobs', all of which follow the same 'Export X' pattern without clarifying what distinguishes proxy configurations from other exportable items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple export tools in the sibling list (e.g., ExportCloudCredentials, ExportJobs), but the description doesn't explain why one would export proxy configurations specifically, what context triggers this need, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'skip' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), error handling, or whether it returns all objects or filtered subsets. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 scan. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., domain identifier), how 'nameFilter' works, or the purpose of 'skip' and 'limit' for pagination. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Active Directory objects from a specific domain' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Active Directory objects'), but it's vague about scope and type. It doesn't specify what kind of objects (e.g., users, groups, computers) or how they're retrieved, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetUser' or 'GetAllInventoryObjects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., domain connectivity), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools in the sibling list, such as 'GetUser' for user-specific queries or 'GetAllInventoryObjects' for broader inventory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's paginated (given skip/limit params), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'four-eyes authorization events' entail. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with undocumented inputs and no structured hints, the description fails to provide enough context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions 'all' but doesn't explain the 'skip' and 'limit' parameters or their purpose (e.g., pagination). No parameter details are provided in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all four-eyes authorization events' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('four-eyes authorization events'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'GetAuthorizationEvent' (singular), leaving ambiguity about when to use one versus the other. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a sibling tool 'GetAuthorizationEvent' (likely for retrieving a single event), the description fails to indicate whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtering, or different use cases. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get all') but does not disclose critical traits like pagination handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it returns full or summary data. The description adds little 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, failing to provide sufficient context for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters, leaving 'skip', 'limit', and 'nameFilter' entirely undocumented. The description does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect the output, resulting in inadequate parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all Scale-Out Backup Repositories (SOBR)' clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('Scale-Out Backup Repositories'), avoiding tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllRepositories' or 'GetScaleOutRepository', leaving the scope ambiguous regarding whether it returns a comprehensive list or basic details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'GetAllRepositories' or 'GetScaleOutRepository', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, what permissions are required, whether it returns detailed metadata or just basic info, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific Azure instant recovery mount point'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how 'mountId' is structured, or the tool's behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage without relying on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter 'mountId' undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'specific' mount point, implying 'mountId' identifies it, but adds no semantic value beyond what's inferable from the parameter name. It doesn't explain what a mountId is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving a critical gap in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving a specific Azure instant recovery mount point, which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' (plural) or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (action tool), leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this 'get' operation from related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' (for listing all mounts) and 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (for creating mounts), the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this retrieval is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other mount-related operations. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get settings for switchover to Azure.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Azure recovery operations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the nature of the settings, how they relate to switchover processes, or what to expect from the tool. For a tool in a recovery context, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 tool description adds no information about the 'mountId' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'mountId' is (e.g., an identifier for a recovery mount), its format, or where to obtain it. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get settings for switchover to Azure' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('settings for switchover to Azure'), but it's vague about what these settings entail (e.g., configuration details, parameters, or options). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving settings, but there's no mention of prerequisites, related tools (e.g., 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings'), or specific contexts like before performing a switchover. This lack of guidance could lead to misuse or confusion with sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns metadata or file content, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks essential 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns, the parameter semantics, or behavioral traits like safety or permissions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'by its ID' but doesn't explain the two required parameters ('id' and 'backupFileId'), their relationship, or format. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific backup file by its ID' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (backup file), but it's somewhat vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, download content). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetBackup' or 'GetAllBackupFiles', which handle related backup operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as needing a valid backup file ID, or contrast it with siblings like 'GetAllBackupFiles' for listing files or 'DownloadBackupMeta' for downloading metadata. This leaves usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what format the token is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool that retrieves sensitive recovery tokens with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (retrieving sensitive recovery tokens), the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a recovery token is used for, what permissions are required, what the return format looks like, or how this differs from the sibling 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' tool. For a security-sensitive operation, this level of documentation is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no additional parameter information. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (UUID, numeric, etc.), where to find valid IDs, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get a specific recovery token by ID', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('recovery token'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' - both involve getting recovery tokens, with the key difference being single vs. multiple retrieval. The description is vague about what makes this tool unique compared to its sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 tool 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' for retrieving multiple tokens, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, authentication requirements, or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no usage differentiation from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error responses), and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to provide necessary context. For a basic retrieval tool, it should at least clarify parameter roles and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't clarify the purpose of 'id' versus 'entityId', their formats, or relationships. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific discovered entity by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('discovered entity'), but it's vague about what a 'discovered entity' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDiscoveredEntities' (plural). It specifies retrieval by ID, which is helpful but lacks context about the entity type or system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discovered entity), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetDiscoveredEntities' for listing multiple entities. The description implies usage for retrieval by ID but offers no contextual boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit params but not explained), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral context, or what the output entails (e.g., data format, pagination), leaving too many unknowns for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in the context of license consumption, their units, default values, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get capacity license consumption details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('capacity license consumption details'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedInstances' or 'GetLicensedSockets', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of licensing it retrieves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'GetLicensedInstances' and 'GetLicensedSockets' present, the description fails to specify if this tool is for overall consumption metrics, detailed breakdowns, or other purposes, offering no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), or what the output looks like. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects, or return values. For a tool that likely involves data retrieval with pagination, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purpose is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in the context of license consumption details (e.g., pagination offsets and result counts).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get instance license consumption details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('instance license consumption details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'instance license consumption' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity' or 'GetLicensedSockets', which likely retrieve related but different license information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetLicensedCapacity' and 'GetLicensedSockets' present, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool (e.g., whether it's for per-instance details vs. aggregate metrics). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get a specific restore point,' implying a read-only operation, but does not address critical aspects like permissions required, whether it returns metadata or full data, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Get a specific restore point within a replica.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or structural fluff, making it highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a restore point retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation in this environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with parameters 'replicaId' and 'id' undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what these IDs represent (e.g., replica identifier, restore point identifier) or their expected formats. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get a specific restore point within a replica,' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on a restore point resource. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'restore point' entails (e.g., backup snapshot, recovery state) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' or 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints,' making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a replica ID and restore point ID, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' (singular) or 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' (plural). This leaves usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'replica' is in this system, what data is returned, or any operational context (e.g., part of backup/recovery workflows). For a tool with no structured support, more explanatory content is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'id' is used to identify a replica, but doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., string pattern, UUID), source, or validation rules. It fails 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific replica by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('replica'), but it's vague about what a 'replica' entails in this context (e.g., backup replica, VM replica, data replica). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetAllReplicas' by specifying 'specific...by ID', but lacks domain-specific clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllReplicas' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint'. The description implies usage for retrieving a single replica, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid replica ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying replicas).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the data is cached or real-time, what format the settings are returned in, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switchover settings' include, what the mountId parameter means, or what format the response takes. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'mountId'. The description provides no information about what 'mountId' represents, what format it should be in, where to obtain it, or examples of valid values. With low schema coverage and no parameter clarification in the description, this is inadequate for proper tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get file share switchover settings' clearly indicates a retrieval operation (Get) on a specific resource (file share switchover settings). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' - the purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of similar 'Get' tools for different resource types, or what context requires retrieving switchover settings specifically. The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the mountId doesn't exist, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary information or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an FCD instant recovery mount point is, what information the tool returns, or how to use the mountId parameter effectively in the broader context of the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'mountId', and the tool description provides no information about what mountId represents, what format it should be in, or where to obtain valid mountId values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get a specific FCD instant recovery mount point' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('FCD instant recovery mount point'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllVmwareFcdInstantRecoveryMountModels' or explain what makes this 'specific' version different from the 'get all' version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of the 'get all' version, or what context requires retrieving a single mount point rather than listing all available ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Import jobs' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing jobs, what happens on errors (e.g., partial imports), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Import jobs from a JSON specification.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no unnecessary verbiage or redundancy, fitting the tool's purpose without overcomplication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation's impact (e.g., idempotency, error handling), the parameter details, or the return values. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this lack of context poses a risk for correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'JSON specification' which hints at the 'body' content, but doesn't explain the expected structure, required fields, or examples. For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, this is inadequate compensation, leaving the parameter largely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import jobs from a JSON specification' clearly states the verb ('Import') and resource ('jobs'), but it's vague about the scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify whether this creates, updates, or replaces jobs, or what 'JSON specification' entails, making it less specific than ideal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateJob' or 'ExportJobs' by focusing on import, but lacks detail on how it differs operationally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exported jobs from 'ExportJobs'), when it's appropriate (e.g., for bulk operations), or what happens if conflicts arise. With many sibling tools like 'CreateJob' and 'UpdateJob', the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about the best use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an installation, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., requires admin rights, may restart services, is irreversible), error handling, or performance implications. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This is appropriately concise for the basic information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral effects, prerequisites, and expected outcomes. For a tool that installs software on entities, this leaves too many gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and body) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., entity ID) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., installation settings). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Install Veeam Agent') and target ('on discovered entities'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'discovered entities' are (e.g., servers, VMs) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UninstallAgentFromDiscoveredEntities' or 'UpgradeAgentOnDiscoveredEntities' beyond the verb. This makes it vague in distinguishing exact use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entities must be discovered first), conditions for use, or comparisons to related tools like 'applyAgentPolicyConfiguration' or 'CreateManagedServer'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Start Instant Recovery' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it's a temporary mount, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a potentially complex operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'Instant Recovery' and the lack of annotations, output schema, and schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how it behaves, or what inputs are needed, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. This leaves the agent with no guidance on what data to provide for the recovery operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start Instant Recovery') and target resource ('Microsoft Hyper-V VM'), which provides a basic understanding. However, it's vague about what 'Instant Recovery' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'InstantHvVMRecoveryUnmount', leaving ambiguity about the specific operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to similar tools like 'EntireVmRestoreHv' or other recovery operations in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Stop FCD publishing (dismount)' implies a destructive operation that ends a session, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the mounted resources, or any side effects like data loss. For a tool with no annotations and likely mutation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Stop FCD publishing (dismount).' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (likely a mutation operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, prerequisites, and expected outcomes. With no annotations and low schema coverage, the description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the parameters (mountId and body), such as what mountId refers to (e.g., a session ID) or what the body object should contain. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop FCD publishing (dismount)' clearly indicates the action (stop/dismount) and target (FCD publishing), but it's vague about what 'FCD' refers to (likely VMware vSphere Flash Read Cache or similar) and doesn't specify the resource context (e.g., a mounted session). It distinguishes from siblings like 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdMountWithSession' by being the opposite operation, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active mount session), exclusions, or related tools like 'InstantRecoveryVmwareFcdMigrateWithSession' for migration instead of dismounting. The description implies usage only by stating the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a recovery operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), rate limits, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (recovery operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'mount' entails, the recovery process, or expected results, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a nested object ('body') with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('mount') and resource ('file share backup'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount' by specifying the mount action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mount tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions 'Start Instant File Share Recovery' but doesn't clarify the context or conditions for invoking it, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'stop'/'unmount' operation, implying it's destructive to the mounted state, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to data in the mount, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase 'Stop file share publishing (unmount).' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's effects, parameter usage, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely stops a critical recovery process, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions no parameters at all, leaving both 'mountId' and 'body' completely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to or what the 'body' object is for, failing to add any meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop file share publishing (unmount)' clearly states the action (stop/unmount) and resource (file share publishing), but it's somewhat vague about the specific context. It doesn't explicitly mention that this is for instant unstructured data recovery mounts, which is implied by the tool name but not stated in the description. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite action, but could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., that a mount must exist first), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after unmounting. With many sibling tools related to recovery operations, there's no explicit comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool starts a recovery process but fails to describe what this entails—such as whether it mounts a VM, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves time-sensitive operations. For a tool with 'Recovery' in its name and no annotations, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving VM recovery), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage distinctions, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The description provides no information about parameters, not even hinting at what 'body' should contain (e.g., VM identifiers, recovery options). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start Instant Recovery') and target resource ('VMware vSphere VM'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Instant Recovery' entails operationally and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'InstantViVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'InstantViVMRecoveryUnmount', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'InstantViVMRecoveryMigrate' and 'InstantViVMRecoveryUnmount', the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires prior authentication, returns sensitive data, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool handling authentication info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (authentication tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage, parameters, output, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'body' as a nested object. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., request details, filters) or its purpose. This fails 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Google Cloud authentication information' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Google Cloud authentication information), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., tokens, credentials, status). It doesn't distinguish from siblings, though no obvious authentication siblings exist in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., after setup, during errors), or related tools like 'GetCloudCreds' or 'CreateCloudCreds' that might handle authentication aspects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Rescan', which implies a read or update operation, but fails to describe critical traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, triggers background tasks, has side effects (e.g., disrupting services), or provides progress feedback. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, return values, and sibling differentiation, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only hints at 'hostname' as a parameter ('on a specific host') but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter or its purpose (e.g., optional filters or settings). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Rescan') and target ('inventory objects on a specific host'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what 'inventory objects' entail (e.g., VMs, files, configurations) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanManagedServer', leaving ambiguity about scope and alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal context by specifying 'on a specific host', implying usage when targeting a single host. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'RescanAllManagedServers' for broader scans), prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal if this is a read-only or mutating operation, its side effects (e.g., triggers updates, requires permissions), or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves system changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (likely a mutating operation with no annotations or output schema) and poor schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, or parameter details, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 tool description adds no information about the 'id' parameter (e.g., what it refers to, format, or examples). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Rescan') and target ('a specific managed server'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'rescan' entails (e.g., refreshing inventory, updating status) or differentiate it from similar tools like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanInventoryObjects', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RescanAllManagedServers' for bulk operations or 'RescanInventoryObjects' for different scopes. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a mutation action ('Set'), implying changes to system state, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on ongoing operations), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness for the given information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (setting a default), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (0% schema coverage with no compensation in the description), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about what 'id' represents. The description does not add any semantic information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a mount server identifier), its format, or where to obtain it. This lack of compensation for the schema gap makes parameter understanding inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Set a specific mount server as the default'), which includes a verb ('Set') and resource ('mount server'). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'default' means in this context (e.g., default for what operations or contexts?), and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'GetDefaultMountServer' or 'SetupMountServer', which are related but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mount server ID), when it's appropriate to change the default, or what happens after setting it. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent with no direction on application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions enabling/disabling, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on system functionality), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., a boolean flag, configuration object) or how to format it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as enabling or disabling automatic license auto-update, which is a clear verb+action. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'license auto-update' specifically refers to (e.g., software licenses, subscription renewals) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'InstallLicense' or 'UpdateLicense', which might handle related license operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., requiring admin permissions), when it should be applied (e.g., during maintenance windows), or what the alternatives are among sibling tools like 'InstallLicense' or 'UpdateLicense' for license management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states the action without details. It doesn't clarify if this is a read/write operation, its side effects (e.g., resource consumption, time to complete), authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational risks and outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'restore' (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and correct tool invocation by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration for the restore, target details), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving parameters semantically undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore' clearly states the action (start) and resource (Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore), but it's vague about what 'restore' entails—whether it initiates a recovery process, mounts logs for access, or something else. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an audit log backup or specific permissions, and doesn't mention related tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' for stopping the process or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' for broader restores.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'health check and repair operation', implying a potentially mutative or corrective action, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires admin permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., modifies or deletes backups), runtime duration, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Run a health check and repair operation on backups.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place by stating the purpose clearly, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (inferred from 'health check and repair' on backups), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's impact, return values, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely involves system changes, this is inadequate to guide an agent safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., backup IDs, repair options, scope). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves parameters undocumented, hindering correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Run a health check and repair operation on backups', which includes a verb ('Run') and resource ('backups'). However, it's vague about the scope (e.g., which backups, what 'health check' entails) and doesn't distinguish it from potential siblings like 'GetAllBackups' or 'VerifyEncryptionPassword', which might involve checking backup status. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., backups must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring), or compare to siblings like 'VerifyEncryptionPassword' or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer'. Usage is implied from the name and description but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unmount') but does not explain what unmounting entails (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, affects data integrity, or has side effects). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (sessionId and body), and the tool description provides no information about them. It does not explain what sessionId refers to (e.g., an active mount session) or what the body object should contain, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unmount unstructured data FLR volumes' specifies the verb ('Unmount') and resource ('unstructured data FLR volumes'), providing a clear basic purpose. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'StopFlrMount', 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount', or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount', which may have overlapping or similar functions, leaving the scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a mounted session), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools for context, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on connected systems), rate limits, or response format. For a tool that modifies credentials—a sensitive operation—this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words—it directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of good conciseness, though it comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for credentials), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like security implications, error conditions, or what a successful edit entails. For a sensitive operation like credential management, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither 'id' nor 'body' are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., credential identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., fields to update). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a cloud credentials record' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (cloud credentials record), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what 'edit' entails compared to more specific verbs like 'update fields' or 'modify properties', and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey' or 'UpdateCreds', which might handle similar resources. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey', 'UpdateCreds', and 'CreateCloudCreds', there's no indication of prerequisites, distinctions (e.g., this edits existing records while others create or modify specific aspects), or exclusions. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Edit'), but doesn't specify whether this requires admin rights, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or potential side effects like performance impacts. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what latency settings are, how to structure the 'body', or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'latency settings' but doesn't explain the 'id' (e.g., datastore identifier) or 'body' (e.g., specific settings like thresholds or policies). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit latency settings for a specific datastore' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (datastore latency settings), but it's somewhat vague about what 'latency settings' entail. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateStorageLatencySettings' or 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings', leaving ambiguity about scope and uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a datastore ID or specific permissions, and doesn't mention related tools like 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings' for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks detail that might be needed for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 1 nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be edited, how to structure the input, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation about what 'body' should contain. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what fields or structure 'body' should have for editing email settings. This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit email notification settings' clearly states the action (edit) and target resource (email notification settings), which is better than a tautology. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific settings can be edited and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings' that appear in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing settings to edit), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Edit', implying a mutation without details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior. It lacks critical information such as whether this is a partial/full update, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits, making it insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, failing to provide enough context for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'id' and 'body' represent (e.g., tenant identifier and update payload). This leaves both parameters undocumented and unclear in usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a Microsoft Entra ID tenant' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (tenant), but it's vague about what specific aspects are editable. It doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'CreateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants' beyond the basic verb, lacking specificity about scope or fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants'. The description implies usage for editing existing tenants but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., 'body' is an object with unspecified properties). This leaves both parameters undocumented, failing to bridge the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a KMS server configuration' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (KMS server configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what 'edit' entails compared to more specific verbs like 'modify settings' or 'update properties'. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'CreateKMSServer' or 'DeleteKMSServer' beyond the basic verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing KMS server), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'CreateKMSServer' for creation or 'DeleteKMSServer' for deletion, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Edit'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'configuration' but doesn't explain the 'id' or 'body' parameters, their formats, or allowed values. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a backup repository configuration' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (backup repository configuration), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateScaleOutRepository' or 'UpdateRepository' (if present), making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the ID is invalid, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 ('Edit') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be edited, the expected input format, potential outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies a critical resource like a backup repository, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the parameters 'id' (e.g., what it represents, format) or 'body' (e.g., what fields can be edited, expected structure). With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a Scale-Out Backup Repository' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Scale-Out Backup Repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'Edit' entails compared to more specific verbs like 'Update settings' or 'Modify configuration', and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateRepository' or 'CreateScaleOutRepository' in terms of scope or function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing repository ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'UpdateRepository' (for non-scale-out repositories) or 'CreateScaleOutRepository'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what the impact is (e.g., performance changes, downtime), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, a nested input schema with 0% coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'storage latency control settings' entail, how to structure the 'body' parameter, or what the tool returns. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a single nested object parameter 'body' with no defined properties. The description mentions 'settings' but provides no details on what specific settings can be edited, their formats, or valid values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit storage latency control settings' provides a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('storage latency control settings'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific settings are involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'GetStorageLatencySettings' beyond the edit vs. get distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to latency settings (e.g., 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings', 'GetStorageLatencySettings', 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings'), but the description doesn't clarify the context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any side effects (e.g., affecting connected systems). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Edit'), making it immediately understandable, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with nested object parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'edit' entails, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the 'id' (e.g., what identifies the data source) or 'body' (e.g., what fields can be edited, format constraints). With two required parameters and no guidance in the description, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit an unstructured data source' clearly states the action (edit) and target (unstructured data source), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what 'edit' entails (e.g., modifying configuration, updating metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' or 'DeleteUnstructuredDataServers', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing unstructured data server), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting), or refer to sibling tools like 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer' or 'DeleteUnstructuredDataServers', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'verify' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., lockout). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, or expected outcomes. For a verification tool that likely interacts with security-sensitive data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' represent (e.g., password identifier and content), leaving parameters undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in unclear parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Verify that an encryption password is correct' states a clear verb ('verify') and resource ('encryption password'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'correct' (e.g., for a specific object, system-wide). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', which involve modification rather than verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for validation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after creation, before changes) or contrast with sibling tools like 'GetEncryptionPassword' (which might retrieve details) or 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' (which modifies it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'commit failback,' implying a mutation operation that finalizes a failback process, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive impact, given the context of snapshot and replica management.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by snapshot replica management, no annotations, a nested input schema with 0% coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain, such as required fields or structure for the failback operation, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Commit failback for a VMware vSphere snapshot replica' states a specific action ('commit failback') on a resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback', leaving the exact purpose ambiguous relative to similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, timing, or context for 'commit failback' compared to other failback-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what 'start' implies (e.g., asynchronous process). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the essential purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 2 parameters (one nested), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two required parameters (mountId and body). It doesn't explain what mountId refers to or what the body object should contain, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start migrating a machine to Azure permanently' clearly states the action (start migrating) and resource (a machine to Azure), with 'permanently' hinting at a final state. It distinguishes from siblings like AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount (temporary) and AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover (transitional), though not explicitly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover or InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate. The description implies a permanent migration, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether it returns a flat list or hierarchical structure. The mention of 'hierarchy' hints at nested output, but this isn't elaborated. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (cloud storage hierarchy across multiple providers), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, authentication needs, and how to interpret the 'hierarchy'. For a tool with rich potential data, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain, such as filters, cloud provider specifics, or scope. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this fails to provide necessary parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('cloud storage hierarchy') with specific examples (AWS S3, Azure Blob, GCP buckets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'BrowseCloudEntityVirtualMachines' and 'BrowseCloudVaultEntity' by focusing on storage hierarchy rather than virtual machines or vaults. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'Get' tools that might retrieve similar data, keeping it at a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for usage, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (like 'GetAllCloudCreds' or 'GetDiscoveredEntities') that might retrieve related cloud data, the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Change') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies sensitive credential data, leaving 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's overly terse given the tool's complexity—it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency, as it currently under-specifies critical aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (including a nested object), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters ('id' and 'body'). It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., credential record identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., new private key details). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and target resource ('Linux private key for a credentials record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or 'ChangeRootPasswordForCreds' that modify other credential attributes, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context about the credentials system or relationships with other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Generate,' implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, generates downloadable output, or has side effects (e.g., affecting existing deployments). The description is minimal and lacks crucial 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.
Conciseness4/5
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 fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and one nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a kit ID, file, or status), how to use the generated kit, or error conditions. For a tool with such minimal structured data, more descriptive detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with no schema details. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration for the deployment kit, target machine details, or package options). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('deployment kit package'), specifying its purpose for 'adding Windows machines as managed servers.' It's specific about the target (Windows machines) and outcome (managed servers), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'CreateManagedServer' or 'DownloadDeploymentKit'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 implies it's for deployment kits, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or contrast with sibling tools like 'CreateManagedServer' (which might directly add servers) or 'DownloadDeploymentKit' (which might retrieve kits).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add a new server' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'managed server' is, what data the 'body' should include, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely requires specific configuration, this leaves too many gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description provides no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain (e.g., server configuration details like name, type, credentials). This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new server to the backup infrastructure'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer' or 'CreateRepository', which also create resources in the same infrastructure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that create various resources (e.g., 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer', 'CreateRepository'), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific for managed servers or any prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool enables a job, implying a state change operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is reversible (e.g., can be disabled again), potential side effects, or what happens if the job is already enabled. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It needs to address behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility), parameter details, and potentially what happens upon success/failure. The current description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the single parameter 'id' (schema description coverage is 0%). It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., job identifier format, where to find it), what values are valid, or how to obtain it. With low schema coverage and no parameter details in the description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable') and target resource ('a previously disabled job'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'DisableJob' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like 'StartJob' or 'RetryJob'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by implying this tool should be used on 'previously disabled' jobs, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'StartJob' (which might initiate a job that isn't disabled) or 'RetryJob' (which might retry a failed job). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Restore', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing VMs), rate limits, or what the restore entails (e.g., point-in-time recovery). This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs significant infrastructure changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a VM restore operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention what 'body' should contain (e.g., VM identifier, restore point, target location), leaving parameters completely undocumented and unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and the target resource ('an entire VMware Cloud Director VM'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireVmRestoreHv' or 'EntireVmRestoreVmware', which appear to perform similar operations for different platforms, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes other restore tools (e.g., 'EntireVmRestoreHv', 'EntireVmRestoreVmware'), this is a significant gap, as users need to know which tool applies to their specific VMware environment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get available Unix agent packages,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what 'available' entails (e.g., latest versions, all versions). The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get available Unix agent packages.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it easy to parse quickly, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, how results are returned, or the role of skip/limit parameters. For a tool that likely returns a list of packages, more context is needed to understand its behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (skip, limit) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, since there are only two parameters and they are common pagination controls, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't add value but the schema at least defines their types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get available Unix agent packages' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Unix agent packages'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., downloadable, installable, or listed) or distinguish this from the sibling tool 'GetAllAgentPackages' (which presumably gets all agent packages regardless of OS). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllAgentPackages' or any other Unix-specific tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. Without such information, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from additional context. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters, failing to explain what 'skip', 'limit', 'nameFilter', or 'platformFilter' do or how they affect the result. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all backup datasets'), specifying they are 'created on or imported to the Veeam Backup server.' This distinguishes it from tools like 'GetBackup' or 'GetBackupObject' that likely retrieve specific backups. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetAllBackupFiles' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetAllBackupFiles'. It's a standalone statement 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all servers' entails (e.g., scope, format, or potential performance impact). The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameter, return values, or behavioral expectations. For a tool that likely returns a list of inventory hosts, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters, leaving the agent with no guidance on what 'body' should contain or if it's even required. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('servers available for inventory browsing'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInventoryVmwareHosts' or 'GetAllInventoryPGs', which appear to serve similar inventory-related purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that seem related to inventory (e.g., 'GetAllInventoryVmwareHosts', 'GetAllInventoryPGs', 'GetInventoryObjects'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's real-time vs cached data. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and return values, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters 'skip' and 'limit'. It doesn't explain their purpose, default values, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of all backup proxies'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'GetAllProxies' by specifying 'States' rather than just listing proxies, though the distinction could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllProxies' or other state-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with siblings, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get all', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (given skip/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, permissions). For a tool with parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It states the basic purpose but fails to address parameter usage, behavioral context, or output expectations, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they do, their expected values, or how they affect the 'Get all' operation. This leaves the parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all VMware vSphere snapshot replicas'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetReplica' or 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints', which appear to fetch related but potentially different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetReplica' or 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves 'current state and capacity' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential performance impact, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key details like parameters or behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'state' entails, the format of capacity data, or how parameters affect results, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes, such as pagination (skip/limit) or filtering (nameFilter).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current state and capacity of all repositories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllRepositories' (which likely returns basic repository info without capacity metrics) or 'GetAllRepositoriesStates' (which appears to be the same tool based on the name), so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Essential for capacity monitoring,' which implies a monitoring context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'GetAllRepositories' for basic info or other state-checking tools). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral implications, parameter meaning, or expected results, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, but the description doesn't add any semantic details about 'instanceId' (e.g., what it refers to, format, or examples). Since the parameter count is low (1), the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter explanation in the description reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove an instance license record' clearly states the action (remove) and target resource (instance license record), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'RemoveLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RemoveLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions. It lacks any context for selection among similar-sounding tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove a license' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects server functionality, or what happens to licensed features. It also doesn't describe error conditions or rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a potentially impactful operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (0% schema coverage), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the 'body' parameter should contain, or the behavioral implications of license removal. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 ('body') that's a nested object with unspecified properties. The description provides absolutely no information about what parameters are needed (e.g., license ID, server identifier, confirmation flags). The agent has no guidance on how to structure the request body for this operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a license from the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'InstallLicense', 'UpdateLicense', and 'RemoveInstanceLicense' by focusing on license removal specifically. However, it doesn't specify whether this removes installed licenses or license assignments, which would make it 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RemoveInstanceLicense', 'RevokeCapacityLicense', or 'RevokeSocketLicense'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., reduced functionality), or typical usage scenarios. The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'revoke', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, whether the revocation is reversible, what happens to the workload post-revocation, or any rate limits/constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'revoke'), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of revocation, error conditions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'instance license' and 'workload', which loosely relates to the 'instanceId' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema name implies. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or valid values for 'instanceId'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revoke an instance license from a workload' clearly states the action (revoke) and target (instance license from a workload), but it's somewhat vague about what 'instance license' and 'workload' specifically mean in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'RevokeCapacityLicense' and 'RevokeSocketLicense' by focusing on 'instance', but doesn't fully clarify the scope or effect compared to similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RevokeCapacityLicense' or 'RevokeSocketLicense', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Mount' which implies a preparatory operation for restore, but doesn't describe what 'mounting' entails, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing mounts, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the stated purpose, though it could benefit from being more specific about what 'mounting' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a complex sibling environment with many related restore/mount operations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the restore workflow, what parameters are needed, what the operation does, or how it differs from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') that's a generic object with no defined properties. The description provides no information about what should be in the 'body' parameter - no tenant identifiers, authentication details, mount options, or other required fields. This leaves the single parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mount') and target resource ('a Microsoft Entra ID tenant for restore operations'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'StartEntraIDAuditLogMount' or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestoreFromCopy', which appear to be related Entra ID operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the phrase 'for restore operations' gives some context, it doesn't specify what conditions trigger this operation or how it differs from similar restore-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it stops a session), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., data loss, cleanup), or error handling. It adds minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity limits informational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely performs a destructive operation on a session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, but the description does not add any semantic details about 'sessionId' (e.g., format, source, or constraints). Since there's only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unmount Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore session' clearly states the action (unmount) and resource (audit log restore session), but lacks specificity about what 'unmount' entails (e.g., terminating access, cleaning up resources) and how it differs from similar tools like 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopFlrMount'. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopFlrMount'), prerequisites (e.g., requires an active session), or post-conditions. The description implies usage after a mount operation but offers no concrete context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Edit MFA settings' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what the 'body' object should contain, such as specific MFA settings to edit, making it inadequate for understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit MFA settings' clearly states the action (edit) and the resource (MFA settings), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ResetUserMfa' or 'ViewUsersSettings', which handle related MFA/user functionality, so it doesn't fully distinguish alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'ResetUserMfa' for resetting MFA and 'ViewUsersSettings' for viewing settings, but the description doesn't mention these or provide context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Start failback,' implying a mutation or recovery operation, but fails to describe critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving VMware vSphere snapshot replica operations), the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral traits, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 tool description provides no information about parameters. The description does not mention the 'body' parameter or its expected content, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to structure the input, which is inadequate given the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start failback') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaCommitFailback or ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. Given the presence of related sibling tools (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaCommitFailback, ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'permanent failover' operation, implying a destructive, irreversible action, but doesn't disclose what 'permanent' entails, what gets affected, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a critical operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'permanent failover' means operationally, what data is required, or what to expect as a result. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 ('body') that's a generic object. The description provides absolutely no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any parameter semantics. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start permanent failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaPlannedFailover', which appear to be related failover operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. With multiple sibling tools containing 'failover' in their names, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'planned failover' operation, which implies it's a controlled, non-destructive transition (unlike emergency failovers), but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions required, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any rate limits. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (body object with undefined properties), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the 'body' parameter should contain, or the operational implications of starting a planned failover. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and contains a single nested 'body' parameter with completely undefined properties. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed (e.g., replica ID, target host, confirmation flags) or their semantics. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start planned failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover', which appear to be related failover operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with similar names (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover) that likely represent different failover scenarios, but the description doesn't explain when 'planned failover' is appropriate versus other types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Change'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies critical credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of modifying credentials, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two required parameters (including a nested object), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Google service account' and 'cloud credentials record', which hints at the 'body' parameter's content, but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter or provide details on the 'body' structure beyond generic terms. This adds minimal value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and the target resource ('Google service account for a cloud credentials record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey' or 'ChangePasswordForCreds', which appear to modify similar credential-related entities, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other 'Change' tools for credentials. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('Change') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies credentials, this is a significant gap in safety and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, error handling, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions 'secret key for a cloud credentials record' but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter (likely the credential identifier) or the 'body' object (presumably containing the new secret key details). Without this, parameters remain largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and target resource ('secret key for a cloud credentials record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or 'ChangePrivateKeyForCreds', which appear to handle similar credential modifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or 'UpdateCloudCreds'), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation. It's a bare statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Change') but does not specify required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential impacts on server functionality, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without any structural waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('id' and 'body') that are undocumented. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., server identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., certificate details), failing to compensate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and the target resource ('certificate for a KMS server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCertificate' or 'ChangePrivateKeyForCreds', which also involve certificate or credential modifications, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other certificate-related tools in the sibling list. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Change' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to the old password, whether the change is immediate or requires confirmation, or what error conditions might occur. For a password change tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the basic function described and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a password change tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters ('id' and 'body'), and the tool description provides no information about what these parameters represent. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (credential ID? username?), what the 'body' object should contain (new password field? confirmation?), or the expected format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change the password') and the target ('for a credentials record'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeRootPasswordForCreds' or 'ChangePrivateKeyForCreds', which appear to perform similar operations on different credential aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ChangeRootPasswordForCreds' or 'ChangePrivateKeyForCreds'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical usage scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool changes a password, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system access, or has side effects like locking accounts. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a security-sensitive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating security credentials), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'credentials record' but doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' parameters represent, their expected formats, or what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., new password, confirmation). This leaves critical parameter details undocumented, hindering correct tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and target ('Linux root password for a credentials record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ChangePasswordForCreds', which appears to be a more general password change tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific root password variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or other credential modification tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or any constraints, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool clones a job, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the clone inherits settings, if the original job is affected, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clone an existing job') and adds necessary detail ('to create a duplicate with a new name'). There is no wasted language, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, behavioral effects, parameter usage, and return values, which are critical for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'an existing job' and 'new name,' hinting at parameters for the job ID and name, but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Clone') and resource ('an existing job'), specifying it creates a duplicate with a new name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateJob' by indicating it duplicates an existing job rather than creating one from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like 'UpdateJob' or 'RetryJob' in terms of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'CreateJob' (for new jobs) or 'UpdateJob' (for modifying existing jobs). 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the token is reusable, expiration details, or what happens on failure. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving key aspects like parameter details, behavioral traits, and output undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'body' (a nested object). The description doesn't explain what properties 'body' should contain (e.g., computer identifier, token settings) or their semantics, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and target resource ('recovery token for a protected computer'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteComputerRecoveryToken' or 'UpdateComputerRecoveryToken', but the action is distinct enough to imply its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing a protected computer), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'DeleteComputerRecoveryToken' or 'GetComputerRecoveryToken' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add a new credentials record,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral context, or usage guidelines, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes one nested parameter ('body') with unspecified properties. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what fields 'body' should contain, their formats, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new credentials record to the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'CreateCloudCreds' or 'UpdateCreds', which handle similar credential operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateCloudCreds' or 'UpdateCreds', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It lacks any context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing tenants), rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a tenant (a mutation operation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the input schema lacks descriptions. The description doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For this context, it should provide more guidance on usage and parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 'body' as a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., tenant name, configuration details, authentication parameters). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new Microsoft Entra ID tenant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'DeleteEntraIDTenants' and 'UpdateEntraIDTenants' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'tenant' in this context or differentiate from similar creation tools like 'CreateUser' or 'CreateCloudCreds' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., permissions, existing configurations), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'UpdateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add a VM to the global exclusion list,' implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is destructive, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description does not mention parameters at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a VM to the global exclusion list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion', but the verb 'Add' versus 'Delete' provides implicit distinction, so it's not fully explicit about sibling relationships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context such as prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what the global exclusion list entails, leaving the agent without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates jobs, implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the job starts automatically, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a job (likely involving multiple configuration options), the absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested parameter structure, the description is insufficient. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the tool poorly documented for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a nested 'body' object with unspecified properties. The description does not add any parameter semantics—it does not explain what the 'body' should contain, such as job type, schedule, or target details. This lack of information makes parameter usage unclear and unhelpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new') and the resource ('backup, replication, or copy job on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CloneJob' or 'StartJob', which might involve similar job-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CloneJob' or 'UpdateJob', nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This lack of usage instructions could lead to confusion in tool selection among the many job-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a KMS server is, what data must be provided, what the operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, this leaves too many gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') that's a generic object with no defined properties. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't explain what fields 'body' should contain, what configuration a KMS server requires, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new KMS server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'DeleteKMSServer' and 'UpdateKMSServer' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't specify what a KMS server is in this context or differentiate from other creation tools like 'CreateManagedServer' or 'CreateRepository'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'GetKMSServers' (for listing) or 'UpdateKMSServer' (for modification). The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create,' implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the output entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for the basic information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with a nested parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain critical aspects like parameter details, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameter meaning, format, or required fields. For a parameter that is a nested object, this leaves the agent guessing about what to include in 'body'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('license usage report for the backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity' or 'GetLicensedInstances', which might retrieve related license data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for license and report-related operations, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new backup repository' implies a creation/mutation operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects existing backups), response format, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it lacks additional context that might be needed for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a backup repository entails, required inputs, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent with no guidance on what 'body' should contain (e.g., repository name, storage settings). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new backup repository' clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('backup repository'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateScaleOutRepository' or 'UpdateRepository', which are related but distinct operations, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateScaleOutRepository' for scalable storage or 'UpdateRepository' for modifications. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new user or group', implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a complex 'body' parameter with nested objects. The description adds no information about what fields 'body' should contain (e.g., username, group name, permissions), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new user or group to Veeam Backup & Replication'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateCreds' or 'CreateManagedServer', which also create entities, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'CreateCreds' for credentials or 'UpdateUser' for modifications). It lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion but fails to mention critical traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects related backups, or has side effects (e.g., freeing up disk space). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it safely and effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'id' parameter (e.g., what format it uses or how to obtain it) or the 'deleteFromDisk' parameter (e.g., whether it defaults to false or has implications). No additional meaning is provided beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a backup dataset from the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'DeleteBackupObject' by specifying 'backup dataset' rather than a generic object, though the distinction could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'DeleteBackupObject' or other deletion tools in the sibling list). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the backup must be inactive or if there are dependencies, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related backups, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'a specific object' but doesn't explain what 'id' and 'objectId' represent, their format, or how they differ. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific object from a backup'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteCloudCreds', which target different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the backup must be in a specific state, or exclusions like not using it for bulk deletions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove' (implying a destructive mutation) but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the removal is reversible, side effects on the cloud credentials record, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, outcomes, and error handling, leaving too many gaps for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'a helper appliance' and 'a cloud credentials record', which loosely map to 'applianceId' and 'id', but it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or where to obtain them. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a helper appliance from a cloud credentials record'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'CreateCloudCredsHelperAppliance' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'DeleteCloudCreds'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or explicit references to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or has side effects. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral risks, parameter details, and expected outcomes. For a deletion operation, this minimal description is inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., password identifier, name, or UUID), its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove an encryption password' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (encryption password). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' and 'CreateEncryptionPassword' by specifying deletion rather than modification or creation. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., from where it's removed) or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the password ID), consequences (e.g., impact on encrypted data), or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' and 'CreateEncryptionPassword' exist, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, affects dependent resources, or provides any response format. 'Remove' implies mutation but lacks critical safety and operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single clear sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain consequences, permissions, error conditions, and parameter details to be complete. The current description leaves too many critical questions unanswered for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with one parameter ('id'), and the description provides no information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what the ID represents, format requirements, or where to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a backup proxy'), providing specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteRepository', but the resource specificity is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or relationship to other proxy-related tools like 'DisableProxy' or 'CreateProxy'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, requires admin permissions, affects backups or jobs, or has confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meaning, behavioral implications, usage context, or what to expect after invocation. The tool's complexity demands more complete documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., username, email, GUID), where to find it, or format requirements. This fails to compensate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a user or group from Veeam Backup & Replication'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., DeleteBackup, DeleteCreds, DeleteJob), which all perform removal operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., user must exist), consequences of deletion, or what happens to associated data/access. With many sibling deletion tools, the agent has no help selecting the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool disables maintenance mode, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., extent identifier) or what 'body' might contain (e.g., additional settings). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable maintenance mode') and the target resource ('on a SOBR extent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from its sibling 'EnableScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other maintenance or scale-out extent tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention if the SOBR extent must already be in maintenance mode, what happens after disabling, or any related tools like 'DisableScaleOutExtentSealedMode' or 'EnableScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode' for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Disable'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, reversibility, or system impact. For a tool that likely changes system state, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., extent identifier) or what 'body' might contain, leaving both parameters undocumented and unclear in meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable sealed mode') and the target resource ('on a SOBR extent'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'EnableScaleOutExtentSealedMode' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit differentiation about when each should be used.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. The description is a simple statement of function without indicating scenarios, conditions, or related tools like 'EnableScaleOutExtentSealedMode' or 'DisableScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading a file, implying a read operation, but does not specify if this requires special permissions, affects system state, involves rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., file content or metadata). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a download operation with 2 parameters (one required, one nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two parameters ('id' and 'body') undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., backup ID) or what 'body' is used for (e.g., optional metadata). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download') and resource ('backup metadata file for a backup'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetBackup' or 'GetBackupFile', which might retrieve similar data but not necessarily as a downloadable file, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other 'Get' or 'Download' tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior2/5
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 'Download' which implies a read operation that retrieves data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what format the download is in (e.g., ZIP file), or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the parameter's purpose, the download's format or behavior, or usage context. For a tool that likely involves file retrieval, more detail is needed to be fully actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 (no schema descriptions). The tool description doesn't mention the 'taskId' parameter at all, failing to explain what it represents (e.g., an ID from a prior creation task) or its format. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download') and the resource ('a generated deployment kit package'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'CreateDeploymentKit' or 'GetAllDeploymentKits' that might exist in the broader context, though those specific siblings aren't listed in the provided set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., that a deployment kit must first be created via 'CreateDeploymentKit'), nor does it specify scenarios where downloading is appropriate versus other operations on deployment kits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what maintenance mode entails, potential impacts on operations, or any rate limits/side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one being a nested object), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what maintenance mode does, what parameters are needed, what happens after enabling it, or any error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 2 parameters (id and body), and the description provides no information about either parameter. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (extent ID?), what the 'body' object should contain, or any required fields beyond what the minimal schema indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable maintenance mode') and target resource ('on a SOBR extent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'DisableScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or prerequisites. The description lacks context about why or when maintenance mode should be enabled, and doesn't reference the sibling disable tool or other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Restore' implies a significant write operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has destructive consequences, involves timeouts, or provides progress tracking. For a major recovery 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool performing a major restoration operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter requirements, success/failure outcomes, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('body') that's a nested object. The description provides no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain - no indication of required fields, format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter essentially undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and resource ('an entire object storage bucket or container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to unstructured data recovery and restoration, there's no indication of prerequisites, target scenarios, or differences from tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Restore') which implies a potentially destructive operation, but fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing VMs, recovery point selection, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs significant system changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex restoration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter schema, the description is severely incomplete. It identifies the tool type but provides none of the operational context, parameter guidance, or behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with one complex parameter ('body' as an object with additionalProperties). The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any required fields. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented and unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and target resource ('an entire Microsoft Hyper-V VM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireVmRestoreVmware' or 'EntireVmRestoreCloudDirector' beyond specifying Hyper-V, which is somewhat implied but not explicitly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a registration operation (implies mutation/write), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'device code flow' hints at an authentication context but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and method without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (registration with device code flow, 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral expectations, error handling, and output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 doesn't explain the two required parameters ('verificationCode' and 'body')—what they represent, their format, or how they relate to the device code flow. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's general purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Register') and target resource ('a Microsoft Entra ID application') with the specific method ('using device code flow'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the registration method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other registration tools like 'RequestAppRegistrationByDeviceCode'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. The description mentions 'device code flow' but doesn't explain its role in a multi-step process or when it's appropriate compared to other authentication/registration methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'active' mount points, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles pagination (given 'skip' and 'limit' parameters), or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning its place effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, behavioral details like pagination or permissions, or what is returned, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity and lack of structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters ('skip' and 'limit') with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all active instant recovery mount points for Azure VMs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMountSessions', which appears to be a related but distinct operation, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the sibling 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMountSessions' or other instant recovery mount tools for different platforms (e.g., 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't describe what 'mount sessions' entail, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all mount sessions'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (Azure instant recovery context), lack of annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving the agent without needed context on behavior, parameters, or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, while the schema has one required parameter (mountId) with 0% description coverage. The description fails to explain what 'mountId' represents, its format, or how it relates to retrieving 'all mount sessions', leaving the parameter's purpose and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('mount sessions for Azure instant recovery'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount', but the specificity of 'mount sessions' provides some distinction from general mount operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for usage, or compare it to related sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving files but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or response format. For a read operation with three parameters, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a tool that likely returns a list of files, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage for all three parameters (id, skip, limit). While it implies 'id' relates to a backup, specifics like format or purpose are missing. Skip and limit are entirely undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('.VBK and .VIB files associated with a backup'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetBackupFile' or 'GetAllBackups', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetBackupFile' for individual files or 'GetAllBackups' for broader backup data. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage mentioned, leaving the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits like pagination handling (via skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all backup objects') and adds clarifying scope ('across all backups'). No extraneous details or redundancy are present, making it optimally concise for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. While conciseness is high, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably invoke the tool or interpret results, especially compared to richer siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions no parameters, leaving all 4 (skip, limit, nameFilter, platformFilter) undocumented. While the tool name and description imply filtering capabilities, it doesn't explain parameter roles, formats, or interactions, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all backup objects (VMs, servers)'), specifying it operates 'across all backups.' This distinguishes it from tools like 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering' or 'GetBackupObject' by emphasizing comprehensive retrieval without filtering by default. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering' and 'GetBackupObject' that likely offer more targeted queries, the description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts. This omission leaves the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' records (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks essential 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose and includes helpful examples (AWS, Azure, GCP). Every part of the sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, output format, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter, typeFilter). It doesn't explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all cloud credentials records') with examples of cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP). It distinguishes from other 'Get' tools by specifying the resource type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCloudCreds' (singular) or 'ExportCloudCredentials'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetCloudCreds' (for a specific credential) or 'ExportCloudCredentials'. The description implies it retrieves all records, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all recovery tokens' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters), or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all recovery tokens for bare metal recovery'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks additional helpful details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions, or what the return data looks like, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about these parameters. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in this context (e.g., pagination offsets), their expected values, or defaults, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get all') and resource ('recovery tokens for bare metal recovery'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'GetComputerRecoveryToken' (singular) or other 'GetAll...' tools, which would require explicit differentiation 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetComputerRecoveryToken' (which retrieves a single token) or other recovery-related tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination handling (despite skip/limit parameters), or what happens if no credentials exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose ('Get all credentials records'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering parameters, return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a list/retrieval tool with multiple undocumented inputs, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter, typeFilter) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name implying retrieval of 'all' records, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what these filters do or how they interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('credentials records stored on the Veeam Backup server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCreds' or 'GetAllCloudCreds' that might retrieve specific or cloud credentials, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this exact tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetCreds' (which might fetch a single credential) or 'GetAllCloudCreds' (which might focus on cloud-specific credentials), leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral traits like pagination or filtering, or the return format. For a retrieval tool with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It provides no information on what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the retrieval of encryption passwords.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all encryption passwords configured on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEncryptionPassword' (singular) or 'ExportEncryptionPasswords', but the scope ('all') is implied. 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetEncryptionPassword' (for a single password) or 'ExportEncryptionPasswords' (for export functionality). Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or what constitutes 'all' tenants in this context. The description is too minimal for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the parameters do, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters 'skip' and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't mention pagination, filtering, or any usage context for these inputs. The description fails to compensate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) tenants'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEntraIDTenants' (which appears to be a similar retrieval tool), so it misses the highest clarity mark.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 present (including 'GetEntraIDTenants'), there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering capabilities, or appropriate contexts for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add any context about permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite skip/limit parameters), or response format. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the two parameters (skip and limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain their purpose (e.g., for pagination), valid ranges, or default values. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all global VM exclusions', specifying that these are 'VMs excluded from all jobs'. It's specific about what the tool retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetGlobalVMExclusion' (singular) or other 'GetAll' tools, which slightly limits its distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'GetGlobalVMExclusion' (which might fetch a single exclusion) or other retrieval tools in the list. This leaves the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get all') but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (list operation with parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not address parameter usage, return format, or behavioral aspects, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain these parameters at all. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get all') and resource ('active instant recovery mount points for Microsoft Hyper-V VMs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAllInstantViVMRecoveryMounts', which target different platforms, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other 'GetAllInstant...Mounts' tools for different platforms or more specific mount-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the results return, whether results are paginated (despite skip/limit parameters), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the basic function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It provides only the basic operation without addressing parameter semantics, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from alternatives. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (skip and limit), the description provides no information about parameter meaning, usage, or constraints. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented. For a tool with two parameters that are entirely undocumented in the schema, this represents a significant gap in parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and target resource ('active instant file share recovery mount points'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts' that appear to serve similar listing functions for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. With numerous sibling tools that appear to perform similar listing operations for different resource types (VM recovery mounts, unstructured data servers, etc.), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active' mounts, which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters), response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a complex environment with many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'skip' and 'limit' parameters. It doesn't explain their purpose (e.g., for pagination), valid ranges, or defaults, leaving these two parameters completely undocumented beyond their names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all active instant recovery mount points for VMware vSphere VMs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts', which target different platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what it does without context about its role among the many sibling tools, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving servers but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or the format of the return data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and parameters with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for these gaps by explaining return values, behavioral traits, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for a tool with two parameters in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters ('skip' and 'limit') with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get all') and resource ('VMware vSphere servers (vCenter, ESXi hosts) in the inventory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInventoryHosts' or 'GetAllInventoryPGs', which might retrieve different types of inventory items, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other 'GetAllInventory' tools or filtering options. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all'), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention critical behaviors such as pagination (handled via 'skip' and 'limit' parameters), filtering capabilities, sorting options, or potential performance impacts for large datasets. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It only covers the basic purpose, missing details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, filtering), and output format, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their purposes (e.g., 'skip', 'limit', 'nameFilter'), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what the parameters control.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and the resource ('backup, replication, and copy jobs configured on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetJob' (which likely fetches a single job) or 'GetAllJobsStates' (which likely returns status information), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'GetJob', 'GetAllJobsStates', 'ExportJobs'), there is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
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 'real-time state' which suggests freshness, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via skip/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks crucial 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current real-time state...') and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't mention any parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter, stateFilter) or their purposes, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It implies filtering by state via 'stateFilter' but doesn't explain this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current real-time state for all jobs'), specifying the type of data returned (running, idle, warning, etc.). It distinguishes from generic 'GetAllJobs' by focusing on state, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'GetAllProxiesStates' or 'GetAllRepositoriesStates' among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllJobs' (which might return different job attributes) or 'GetJob' (for a single job). The description implies it's for monitoring job states, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, its permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'all' entails (e.g., includes deleted servers). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for effective agent use despite its conciseness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' do (e.g., pagination controls), their default values, or constraints, leaving both parameters undocumented and unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all KMS servers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetKMSServer' (singular) or other 'GetAll...' tools, missing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other tools like 'GetKMSServer' or filtered queries, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with 4 parameters and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear terminology and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a data retrieval tool in a backup system, more context is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'all managed servers' but doesn't explain the 4 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter, typeFilter) or their purposes (e.g., pagination, filtering). It lists server types, which might relate to typeFilter, but this is vague. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all managed servers'), specifying the server types (Windows, Linux, VMware ESXi, Hyper-V) and context ('in the backup infrastructure'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on managed servers rather than other entities like backups, jobs, or credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'GetAll...' tools like GetAllManagedServers (itself) or GetAllUnstructuredDataServers, which slightly reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, exclusions, or compare with other 'GetAll...' tools (e.g., GetAllUnstructuredDataServers for different server types). The context is implied as part of backup infrastructure management, but no explicit usage scenarios or limitations are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'mount server'. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist, but fails to provide necessary 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and includes useful context about the servers' purpose. Every word earns its place in this compact formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data structure is returned, how results are ordered, whether the operation is paginated, or what authentication is required. The description provides basic purpose but leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (skip and limit), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what skip/limit mean in this context, their expected values, or how they affect the 'Get all' operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all mount servers'), and specifies their purpose ('used for file restore and instant recovery operations'). It distinguishes this from other mount-related tools by focusing on retrieval rather than configuration or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'GetMountServer' which appears to fetch a single mount server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, when this operation is appropriate, or compare it to similar tools like 'GetMountServer' (single server) or 'GetDefaultMountServer'. The context of 'file restore and instant recovery operations' is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving data ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list with pagination controls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. With 2 parameters (skip, limit) undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving their purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all replica restore points across all replicas'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllReplicas' or 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints', which might be related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoints' or 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, performance characteristics, or what 'all available' means in practice (e.g., includes deleted/archived points?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what restore points are, what data they contain, how results are structured, or how to use the extensive filtering parameters. The description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention filtering capabilities, pagination options, or parameter formats/constraints, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all available restore points') with scope ('across the entire Veeam infrastructure'). It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation rather than a mutation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that also retrieve restore points (e.g., 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints', 'GetObjectRestorePoint'), the description offers no context about scope differences, filtering capabilities, or performance considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via skip/limit), filtering behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a list tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and return values, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions no parameters, failing to explain 'skip', 'limit', 'nameFilter', or 'typeFilter'. The reference to proxy types (VMware, etc.) loosely relates to 'typeFilter', but doesn't clarify usage or semantics, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all backup proxies'), specifying the types (VMware, Hyper-V, general-purpose). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetProxy' (singular) and 'GetAllProxiesStates' (states only), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetProxy' (for a single proxy) or 'GetAllProxiesStates' (for states). The description implies a broad retrieval, but lacks explicit context, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), or return format. The description is minimal and misses key 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all backup repositories') and adds useful specificity with the parenthetical list of types. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to address parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for a tool with filtering capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'skip', 'limit', 'nameFilter', or 'typeFilter', or provide examples of valid 'typeFilter' values (e.g., 'local', 'cloud'). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all backup repositories'), specifying the types included (local disk, NAS, object storage, cloud vault). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetRepository' (singular) and 'GetAllRepositoriesStates' (states only), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, filtering capabilities (though parameters exist), or compare with other repository-related tools like 'GetRepository' or 'GetAllScaleOutRepositories'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets. For a list operation with parameters, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, return format, pagination, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters 'skip' and 'limit' are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in context of getting data sources, leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all unstructured data sources (file servers, NAS)', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetUnstructuredDataServer' (singular) or 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer', but the 'all' scope is implied. 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for usage, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetUnstructuredDataServer' (singular) or 'BrowseCloudEntity'. This leaves the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters), permissions required, rate limits, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a list operation with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has parameters (skip, limit) with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, output format, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters (skip and limit). It doesn't explain their purpose (e.g., pagination), valid ranges, or default values, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all') and resource ('FCD instant recovery mount points'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetVmwareFcdInstantRecoveryMountModel' (singular vs. plural), but the scope is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'GetVmwareFcdInstantRecoveryMountModel' or other instant recovery mount tools, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (via skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list tool with parameters, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return format, pagination behavior, and error handling, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'skip' and 'limit' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain they control pagination, their units, or default values. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all WAN accelerators'), specifying they are 'configured in the backup infrastructure.' This distinguishes it from tools like 'GetWANAccelerator' (singular) by indicating it retrieves multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'GetAllBackupObjects'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'GetWANAccelerator' for a single item), or specify use cases. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the logs are returned in, if there are rate limits, or if the operation is paginated (despite skip/limit parameters). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the basic function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'id', 'skip', or 'limit' mean. It doesn't explain that 'id' refers to a session identifier, that 'skip' and 'limit' enable pagination, or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('logs for a specific automation session'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSessionLogs' or 'GetAutomationSession', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetSessionLogs' and 'GetAutomationSession' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic function. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'backup object' entails in this context, what data is returned, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but only vaguely references 'ID' without explaining what constitutes a valid backup object ID, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately document the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific backup object by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering'. The description assumes the user already knows they need a specific backup object by ID, offering no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'id', 'skip', and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a specific backup object' which hints at the 'id' parameter purpose, but provides no details about parameter formats, what 'skip' and 'limit' control, or any constraints. The description doesn't adequately compensate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all restore points for a specific backup object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint', but the specificity of 'for a specific backup object' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint'. The description states what it does but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves objects but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions filtering by name ('nameFilter') but does not explain the 'id' parameter (likely backup identifier), 'skip', or 'limit'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('objects (VMs, servers) contained in a specific backup'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetBackupObject', which might retrieve similar data without filtering or with different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllBackupObjects' for unfiltered lists or 'GetBackupObject' for single objects. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 required parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective use without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain what 'id' or 'applianceId' represent. Without this information, users must guess the meaning, such as whether 'id' refers to a cloud credentials record ID. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific helper appliance for a cloud credentials record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllCredsHelperAppliancesWithFiltering' or 'CreateCloudCredsHelperAppliance', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single appliance by ID rather than listing or creating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as needing an existing cloud credentials record or helper appliance, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetAllCredsHelperAppliancesWithFiltering' for broader queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (suggested by skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format), and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely returns a list of entities, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all three parameters (id, skip, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning to these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., protection group ID), or how 'skip' and 'limit' affect the results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('computers discovered by a protection group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'GetProtectedComputers' or 'GetInventoryForPG', which might retrieve similar but different data sets, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that might retrieve related data (e.g., 'GetProtectedComputers', 'GetInventoryForPG'), there's no explicit or implied context for choosing this specific tool, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'delegated restore' and 'user code', hinting at an authentication/authorization flow, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether this initiates a restore or just provides a code, expected response format, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool involving Entra ID operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (Entra ID restore operations), no annotations, no output schema, and a poorly documented input schema (0% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the restore context, what the user code is used for, or the expected outcome, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'body', which is a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., tenant details, restore scope), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the parameter entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a user code') and the resource/context ('for delegated restore of Microsoft Entra ID items'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCodeState', but the verb 'Get' versus 'Get...State' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions 'delegated restore' but doesn't explain what triggers this need or how it relates to other restore-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses (e.g., 'tenant not found'), or whether it returns full or partial tenant data. The description is minimal and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Microsoft Entra ID tenant' is in this context, what data is returned, or potential errors. For a read operation with zero structured documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter 'id'. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't specify ID format (e.g., GUID), source, or validation rules. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Microsoft Entra ID tenant by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllEntraIDTenants' (which retrieves all tenants) or 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode' (which appears related to restore operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., authentication), compare it to 'GetAllEntraIDTenants' for bulk retrieval, or specify error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'general options/settings' includes, the return format, or any behavioral aspects, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get general options/settings of Veeam Backup & Replication,' which is a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('general options/settings'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'general options/settings' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetConfigBackupOptions' or 'UpdateGeneralOptions,' making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage instructions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieval only or when to choose it over other 'Get' tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return data looks like. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how to interpret results, or provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially compared to sibling tools in this domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'mountId', and the tool description adds no information about what 'mountId' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific Hyper-V VM instant recovery mount point'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts' for listing mounts or 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' for Azure-specific mounts. It also lacks prerequisites or context about when this operation is applicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'inventory objects' entail. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'inventory objects' are, how results are returned, or the purpose of the 'body' parameter, leaving too much ambiguity for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with 2 parameters (protectionGroupId and body). The description mentions 'for a specific protection group', which hints at the protectionGroupId parameter, but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter or add any semantic details beyond the bare schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('inventory objects for a specific protection group'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetInventoryObjects' or 'GetAllInventoryPGs', but the specificity to a protection group provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'GetInventoryObjects' or 'GetAllInventoryPGs'. The description implies it's for a specific protection group, but lacks explicit context, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent scope, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one nested), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and context relative to siblings, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'for a specific host', which hints at the 'hostname' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter (an object with additional properties). This leaves half the parameters unexplained, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('inventory objects (VMs, containers)'), specifying the scope ('for a specific host'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetAllInventoryHosts' or 'GetInventoryForPG' by focusing on objects per host, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllInventoryHosts' or 'GetInventoryForPG' is provided. The description implies usage for a specific host but lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the KMS server, potential error scenarios, or how this tool fits into broader workflows. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'id' parameter but provides no additional semantic context about what constitutes a valid KMS server ID, its format, or where to obtain it. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the schema property name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific KMS server by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetAllKMSServers' or 'UpdateKMSServer', but the specificity of 'by ID' provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllKMSServers' for listing all servers or 'UpdateKMSServer' for modifications. It also lacks information about prerequisites or context for when this retrieval operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns detailed metadata, has rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 aspects, parameter details, or return values, which are critical for a tool that retrieves specific data. The conciseness comes at the cost of essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'by ID' without explaining the parameter's format, constraints, or source. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the single required parameter poorly defined beyond its basic existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific replica restore point by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePointInReplica', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 replica restore point ID), contrast with sibling tools (like 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' for listing all points), or specify usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated (though 'skip' and 'limit' parameters suggest pagination), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the basic function. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools. For a tool that presumably returns restore point data, more context is needed about what information is returned and how to interpret it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'id', 'skip', and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to (replica ID? object ID?), what 'skip' and 'limit' do (pagination offset and count?), or their expected formats. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('restore points for a specific replica'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' (which appears to fetch all restore points without specifying a replica) or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' (which might fetch a single restore point). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), error conditions, or what the response format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (0% documented), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, response format, behavioral constraints, or how it fits within the broader restore point management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (restore point ID?), what 'skip' and 'limit' control (pagination?), or their expected formats/ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('disks included in a specific restore point'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint', which might retrieve restore point metadata rather than disks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for restore points, or how it differs from related tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'skip' and 'limit' parameters), or what 'protected' means in this context. The description adds minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 pagination parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format, pagination behavior, or the definition of 'protected', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions no parameters, leaving 'skip' and 'limit' entirely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do (e.g., pagination controls), resulting in inadequate parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('protected Linux computers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetProtectedComputer' (singular) by specifying 'all', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetAllManagedServers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for 'protected' status, or how it differs from other computer-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'GetAllInventoryHosts').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with system data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or usage context, leaving critical gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by ID' without explaining what the ID represents, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('protection group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllProtectionGroups' or 'GetProtectedComputers', which would require explicit scope comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as needing a valid protection group ID, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'GetAllProtectionGroups' for listing multiple groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] a specific repository by ID' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid), permissions required, whether it's a read-only operation, response format, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral aspects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured repository data. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., numeric, string, UUID), where to find it, or provide examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific repository by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetAllRepositories' or 'GetAllRepositoriesStates', which provide broader repository information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'Get' tools (e.g., 'GetAllRepositories', 'GetAllRepositoriesStates'), there's no indication of when this specific ID-based retrieval is preferred over listing tools or other repository-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (hinted by skip/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the log entries contain. For a tool with parameters controlling data retrieval, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the nature of log entries, how results are structured, or usage constraints. For a data retrieval tool with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., task session identifier), what 'skip' and 'limit' do (e.g., pagination controls), or their expected formats/ranges. With three undocumented parameters, this creates significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('log entries for a specific task session'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSessionLogs' or 'GetAutomationSessionLogs', which appear to serve similar logging functions for different session types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for 'task session' (e.g., how it differs from other session types), or any exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves roles, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify parameter semantics, distinguish from siblings, or provide behavioral details like authentication needs or return format. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 tool description doesn't explain what the 'id' parameter represents (e.g., user ID, group ID, or a generic identifier). This leaves the parameter's meaning ambiguous, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and adding 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.
Purpose4/5
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') and resource ('roles assigned to a specific user or group'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewAllUserRoles' or 'ViewUserRole', which appear to serve related but potentially broader or different purposes, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ViewAllUserRoles' (likely lists all roles) and 'ViewUserRole' (likely views a single role by ID), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, such as for retrieving roles for a specific entity versus general role browsing. This leaves usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or error handling. The phrase 'Get' suggests a safe read, but without annotations, more explicit safety or performance context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward name, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only covers one parameter and lacks behavioral, usage, and return value context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but only mentions the 'name' parameter. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'skip', 'limit', 'hierarchyRootId', or 'objectIdFilter', leaving four out of five parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('VMware vSphere server objects'), specifying types like data centers, clusters, and VMs. It distinguishes from many sibling tools (e.g., 'GetAllInventoryVmwareHosts') by focusing on retrieval by server name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar 'Get' tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'by server name' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools (e.g., 'GetAllInventoryVmwareHosts') for different scenarios, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination handling (skip/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no rules exist. For a tool with parameters, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in a complex backup/security context with many sibling operations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for two undocumented parameters (skip, limit). The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, nor does it explain their purpose (e.g., pagination). This leaves critical functionality unexplained beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('YARA rules'), specifying their purpose 'for backup scanning'. It distinguishes from other tools by focusing on YARA rules, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'GetAllGlobalVMExclusions' or 'GetAllTrafficRules' within the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 mentions 'available for backup scanning', but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. With many sibling tools present, this lack of context makes it unclear when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add and initialize' implies a write operation that creates and configures a resource, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects, or what 'initialize' entails. For a tool that likely modifies system state, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (likely a state-changing operation), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after initialization, potential errors, or system impacts. For a tool that adds and initializes a cloud vault, more context is needed to understand its full scope and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what the 'body' should contain, what properties are needed, or what 'add and initialize' requires as input. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add and initialize a Veeam Data Cloud Vault' clearly states the action (add and initialize) and resource (Veeam Data Cloud Vault). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cloud vault setup rather than other operations like backups, recovery, or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'CreateCloudCreds' or 'CreateRepository' which might be related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (over 200), there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or how this relates to other setup/configuration tools. It lacks any 'when' or 'when not' context, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Install' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify required permissions, whether it overwrites existing licenses, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid license, the expected response, or potential errors, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 ('body') that's a nested object. The description provides no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., license key, type, expiration), leaving parameters completely undocumented. This fails to compensate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Install') and target resource ('a license on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'AssignInstanceLicense' or 'UpdateLicense', but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'AssignInstanceLicense', 'UpdateLicense', or 'RenewInstalledLicense'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stops publishing/unmounts a VM, implying a destructive operation that likely changes system state, but doesn't specify effects like whether data is preserved, permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and relationships with sibling tools, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the 'mountId' (required) or 'body' (optional object) parameters, their formats, or purposes. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop publishing') and resource ('a Hyper-V VM') with the specific operation 'unmount' in parentheses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all alternatives like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate' or other unmount tools for different platforms (e.g., 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount'). The description implies usage for stopping VM publishing but lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Start finalizing/migrating' implies a potentially destructive or state-changing operation, but doesn't clarify what 'finalizing' entails, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the original recovery mount. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the high-level concept, leaving critical gaps in understanding the operation's behavior, parameters, and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (mountId and body), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how to use them. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the bare schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start finalizing/migrating') and target resource ('an instant-recovered VMware vSphere VM'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' which perform similar operations on different platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or what constitutes an 'instant-recovered' VM. There are multiple sibling migration tools (e.g., for Hyper-V, Azure, unstructured data) but no indication of when this specific VMware vSphere version is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stops publishing/unmounts a VM, implying a destructive or state-changing operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, effects on the VM (e.g., data loss), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Stop publishing') and resource ('a VMware vSphere VM'), and the parenthetical 'unmount' adds clarity 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., side effects), and output information, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain 'mountId' (required) or 'body' (nested object), leaving their purposes and formats unclear. This adds no value beyond the schema, which is inadequate given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop publishing') and target resource ('a VMware vSphere VM'), with 'unmount' in parentheses reinforcing the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'InstantViVMRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other unmount tools for different platforms (e.g., AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for stopping a published VM, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing mount), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'InstantViVMRecoveryMigrate' or other unmount tools. This leaves usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Renew' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't describe what 'renew' entails (e.g., extending expiration, updating keys), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it's idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'renew' means operationally, what inputs are required, what the outcome is, or how it differs from sibling license tools, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed (e.g., license key, renewal duration) or their semantics. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Renew') and the resource ('the installed license on the Veeam Backup server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'InstallLicense', 'UpdateLicense', or 'RemoveLicense', which would require explaining what 'renew' means specifically versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'InstallLicense' or 'UpdateLicense', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a license must already be installed). It only states what the tool does without context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this initiates a process, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., generating a code), or involves rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely interacts with identity services.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (involving Microsoft Entra ID and device codes), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the device code is used, or provide any context about the app registration workflow, making it insufficient for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The tool description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't mention the 'body' parameter at all, what it should contain, or examples of valid inputs. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Microsoft Entra ID device verification code for app registration'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode', but the verb 'Get' suggests this is an initial request step rather than completion or restoration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusion criteria, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Rescan' implies a read/scan operation rather than mutation, it doesn't specify whether this triggers background processes, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing protection settings, or provides progress feedback. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple scanning operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the rescan, what 'discover new machines' means operationally, whether there are limitations or prerequisites, or what the agent should expect as a result. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'id' parameter, and the tool description provides no information about what this ID represents, where to find it, or its format. The description mentions 'protection group' which hints at the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explicitly connect it to the 'id' parameter or provide any semantic details beyond what's implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rescan') and target ('protection group') with the specific outcome ('to discover new machines'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanInventoryObjects' by focusing on protection groups specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanInventoryObjects'. The description implies usage after new machines are added to a protection group, but doesn't state prerequisites, timing considerations, or when other rescan tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resets a status, implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical details such as whether this requires admin permissions, if the reset is reversible, what the reset does (e.g., clears alerts, resets compliance state), or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral details, parameter explanations, usage guidance, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 'id' of type string. The description does not add any semantic meaning to this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a best practice check ID), where to find it, or its format. Since the schema provides no details, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and the target ('status of a specific Security & Compliance Analyzer best practice check'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it's for a 'specific' check, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'ResetAllBestPracticesComplianceStatuses' beyond that implied scope difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 its sibling 'ResetAllBestPracticesComplianceStatuses' for resetting all checks. It also lacks information about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, output expectations, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool effectively without additional guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, leaving the agent with no guidance on what 'body' should contain or how to structure it for resolving hosts. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the target resource ('vCenter Servers attached to a VMware Cloud Director server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ResolveHyperVHosts' or 'GetAllInventoryVmwareHosts', but the focus on Cloud Director is clear enough for basic identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention any sibling tools or scenarios where this is preferred over other host-resolution methods, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested structure, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with infrastructure management systems, this leaves too many gaps for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('body') that's a nested object with no documented properties. The description doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., cluster name, SCVMM server details, filtering criteria). It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Microsoft Hyper-V servers'), specifying they are managed by either a Hyper-V cluster or SCVMM server. It distinguishes from generic inventory tools by focusing on Hyper-V hosts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInventoryHosts' or 'ResolveCloudDirectorHosts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 implies it's for retrieving Hyper-V hosts from specific management sources, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose other inventory tools like 'GetAllInventoryHosts' or 'GetInventoryObjects'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Enable or disable,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on agents, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with a nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instance consumption' entails, how to structure the 'body' parameter, or what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with one parameter ('body') that is a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about parameter semantics, such as what fields 'body' should contain (e.g., agent IDs, consumption state flags) or expected formats. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and the target resource ('instance consumption for unlicensed agents'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'AssignInstanceLicense' or 'RemoveInstanceLicense' that also deal with licensing/consumption, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'AssignInstanceLicense' or 'RemoveInstanceLicense', which appear related based on sibling names. The description implies usage for managing consumption settings but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting a session and mounting a backup, implying a potentially stateful or resource-intensive operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's destructive, session management, rate limits, or expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an AI 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving session management and backup mounting), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'StopFlrMount'), leaving the AI agent with insufficient information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure or purpose. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., backup ID, mount options) or how to format it. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start a file restore session') and the resource/operation ('mount backup for file-level restore'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'StartUnstructuredDataFlrMount' or 'StopFlrMount', which appear to handle similar or related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. While it implies usage for file-level restore operations, it lacks explicit context such as when to choose this over other restore methods (e.g., entire VM restore) or what conditions must be met before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a mutation tool ('Start/run') that returns a session ID, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'immediately' entails operationally. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, error handling, and output specifics beyond a session ID mention. For a job-starting tool in a system with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., job ID) or what 'body' contains (e.g., configuration overrides). With 2 parameters and 0% coverage, the description adds no value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Start/run') and resource ('a specific job'), and specifies it happens 'immediately'. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'RetryJob' or 'EnableJob', which might have overlapping purposes in job management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RetryJob', 'EnableJob', or 'StopJob'. It mentions a 'session ID' for tracking progress, but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting a session but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's asynchronous, or what the expected outcomes are. For a tool that likely initiates a restore process, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of initiating a restore session, no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to manage the session, or any behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain, such as backup identifiers, restore options, or session settings. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start a file-level restore session') and the resource ('from an unstructured data backup'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StartFlrMount' or 'StopUnstructuredDataFLRMount', which appear to be related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context about when this operation is appropriate compared to other restore or mount tools in the sibling list, such as 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount' or 'EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Suppress,' implying a mutation or state change, but does not detail permissions required, whether the suppression is permanent or temporary, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely alters system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating compliance alerts), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. It does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., alert identifier) or what 'body' might contain (e.g., suppression reason or metadata), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Suppress') and the target resource ('a specific Security & Compliance Analyzer best practice alert'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from any sibling tools, as none of the listed siblings appear to handle suppression of compliance alerts directly, but the description lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context, such as when suppression is appropriate or what might happen after suppression.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Uninstall' implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's reversible, what happens to associated data, or any side effects like service disruption. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and target, though it lacks detail due to brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (including a nested object), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'discovered entities' but doesn't explain the 'id' and 'body' parameters—what they represent, how to format them, or examples. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Uninstall') and target resource ('Veeam Agent from discovered entities'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'InstallAgentOnDiscoveredEntities' or 'UpgradeAgentOnDiscoveredEntities', but the verb 'Uninstall' is specific enough to distinguish it as a removal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'InstallAgentOnDiscoveredEntities' and 'UpgradeAgentOnDiscoveredEntities', it fails to specify scenarios where uninstallation is appropriate over other actions, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Edit'), but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'an existing credentials record', hinting at the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter's purpose or structure. This leaves two parameters poorly documented, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target resource ('an existing credentials record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateCreds' (if present) or 'ChangePasswordForCreds', leaving room for ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or 'UpdateSingleUseCredentials'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing credentials record ID, or exclusions, which limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Edit') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies security-related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (modifying encryption passwords), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, input requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'hint' editing but doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' parameters represent, their formats, or how 'body' relates to the hint. This leaves key input semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target resource ('the hint of an encryption password'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', nor are any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be applied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Edit') but does not specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects like rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies data without safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' or 'body'. It mentions editing a note but fails to clarify that 'id' identifies the exclusion and 'body' contains the note content, leaving semantics unclear and not compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target resource ('the note for a global VM exclusion'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateGlobalVMExclusion' or 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion', which would require mentioning it modifies an existing exclusion's note rather than creating or deleting exclusions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when to choose it over creating or deleting exclusions, or any prerequisites like needing an existing exclusion ID. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Edit the configuration,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., server downtime), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies server configurations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('id' and 'body') that are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not explaining what 'id' refers to (e.g., server identifier) or what 'body' contains (e.g., configuration fields). For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('configuration of a managed server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'CreateManagedServer' and 'DeleteManagedServer' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'UpdateJob', 'UpdateProxy').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing managed server), or exclusions. It lacks context such as whether it's for post-creation adjustments or specific configuration changes, leaving usage entirely implied from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., service disruption), rate limits, or response format. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a tool that modifies server configurations, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'mount server configuration' but doesn't explain the two parameters ('id' and 'body')—what they represent, expected formats, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a mount server configuration' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('mount server configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'SetupMountServer' or 'GetMountServer', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of existing configuration versus initial setup or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., an existing mount server), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'SetupMountServer' (likely for initial setup) or 'GetMountServer' (for retrieval). Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't reveal critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires administrative permissions, if it's destructive to existing configurations, what happens to components not mentioned, potential downtime, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the target components.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter details, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and includes a single complex parameter 'body' with nested objects. The description mentions 'agents, drivers' as components but doesn't explain what properties the 'body' object should contain, their formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by providing meaningful parameter semantics beyond a vague hint at component types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target resource ('managed server components'), specifying the components as 'agents, drivers'. This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateManagedServer' or 'UpdateAgentConsumption' that might handle similar resources differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with 'Update' in their names (e.g., UpdateManagedServer, UpdateAgentConsumption, UpdateJob), but the description doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when this particular tool is appropriate for updating components versus other update operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Change') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (including a nested object), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavior, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., server ID) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., credential settings). With two parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and target resource ('a managed server to use single-use credentials'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateManagedServer' or 'UpdateCreds', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools present (like UpdateManagedServer, UpdateCreds, ChangePasswordForCreds), the lack of differentiation leaves usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'edits' roles, implying a mutation. It fails to disclose critical behaviors like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling, which are essential for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and target, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., user ID, group ID) or the structure/constraints of the 'body' object, leaving both parameters semantically unclear beyond the schema's basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target ('roles assigned to a user or group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'CreateUser' or 'DeleteUser', which also manage user-related configurations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing user or group, or comparisons to tools like 'CreateUser' or 'ViewAllUserRoles', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the lack of detail makes it feel under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details about parameters, behavior, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters ('id' and 'body'). It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., volume ID) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., volume properties to edit), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('volumes on a Microsoft Hyper-V standalone server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'UpdateManagedServerVolume' by focusing on Hyper-V volumes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other volume-related tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context (e.g., after volume creation), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, involves pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, error conditions, or how parameters affect results. For a list/retrieval tool with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to guide proper usage and expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent without guidance on what these parameters do or how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all users and groups with access to Veeam Backup & Replication'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetUser', 'GetAllUsers', or 'ViewUsersSettings', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 filtering options (e.g., 'GetUser' for a specific user) or related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for invocation, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' events, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via skip/limit parameters), filtering capabilities (stateFilter), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., time range). This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by specifying the type of events and their source.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering). For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'all malware/ransomware events' but doesn't explain the three parameters (skip, limit, stateFilter) or their purposes (e.g., pagination, state filtering). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('malware/ransomware events detected in backup data'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (singular) or 'CreateSuspiciousActivityEvent', but the plural 'all events' implies a list operation versus single-item operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., after a scan), or compare it to siblings like 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (singular) or 'StartMalwareBackupScan'. Usage is implied only by the action 'Get all events'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the role ID is invalid, or if there are rate limits. The description lacks essential context for 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of permissions, structured data), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns critical security or configuration data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no additional information about what this parameter represents (e.g., role ID format, where to obtain it, or validation rules). This leaves the parameter's meaning ambiguous despite the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('permissions associated with a specific role'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewUserRole' or 'GetUserRoles', which appear to be related but have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ViewAllUserRoles' or 'GetUserRoles'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing a valid role ID, or contextual constraints like requiring specific permissions to view role permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Start failover' which implies a potentially destructive or disruptive operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the high-level concept, what inputs are required, what happens during execution, or what to expect as a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'body' has an open-ended object structure with no documented properties. The description provides no information about what should be in the body parameter (e.g., replica ID, target settings, confirmation flags), leaving the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start failover') and target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover or ViVMSnapshotReplicaPlannedFailover, which appear to be related failover operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context for invocation. With multiple sibling failover tools (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover, ViVMSnapshotReplicaPlannedFailover), this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Undo failover' implies a reversal operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'undo failover' entails operationally, what parameters are required, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage with 1 required parameter ('body') that contains nested objects with unspecified properties. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any required fields. This leaves the agent with essentially no guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Undo failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback or ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, which would require more specific context about what 'undo' means 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. Given the presence of related sibling tools (ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback, ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, etc.), this represents a significant gap in helping the agent choose correctly between similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states the tool applies configurations, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers immediate backups or restarts agents), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves the agent guessing about operational risks and outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope ('Apply backup policy configuration to all computers managed by the policy') with a clarifying note ('agent jobs only'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of applying policy configurations (a mutation operation with potential system-wide impact), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'apply' entails behaviorally, expected outcomes, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that could affect multiple managed computers, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 'id' of type string. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., policy ID, job ID, or computer group ID), its format, or where to obtain it. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description fails to clarify this critical input, it's scored lower at 3 for minimal adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('apply') and target ('backup policy configuration to all computers managed by the policy'), specifying it's for 'agent jobs only'. It distinguishes from general policy tools by focusing on agent-based application, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'UpdateJob' or 'StartJob' which might handle similar configurations differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance—it implies usage when needing to apply policy configurations to managed computers via agent jobs, but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after policy creation or as a bulk update, nor does it mention sibling tools like 'UpdateJob' that might handle similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'clear' operation, implying mutation/destruction of cache data, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system performance, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no redundant information or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation on backup systems), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails operationally, what the 'backup cache' contains, potential side effects, or success/failure indicators. For a tool in a backup management context, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention any parameters, while the schema has one required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage. The description implies the tool operates on an agent backup policy cache, which contextually suggests 'id' refers to a policy identifier, but this isn't explicitly stated. With low schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond basic inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the target ('backup cache for an agent backup policy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteBackupObject' by focusing on cache clearance rather than deletion of primary data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'RescanProtectionGroup' or 'UpdateAgentPolicyConfiguration' that might involve cache-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., whether the agent policy must be active), consequences (e.g., performance impact during cache clearance), or when not to use it (e.g., during backup operations). With many sibling tools for backup management, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation ('Remove') but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impacting dependent jobs). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or consequences, nor does it explain what 'id' refers to or what happens post-deletion, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, with only one required parameter and a clear naming convention ('id'), the baseline is 3 as the schema structure itself provides minimal but adequate context without additional semantic explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('cloud credentials record'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteCreds' or 'DeleteCloudCredsHelperApplianceAsync', which also delete credential-related resources, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'DeleteCreds' or 'UpdateCloudCreds', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the credentials must be unused). It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Remove a credentials record,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any parameter-specific information. Since there is only one parameter and the schema defines its type and requirement, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the basic structure without extra semantic details from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a credentials record from the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteCloudCreds or DeleteUser, which perform similar deletion operations on different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 DeleteCloudCreds for cloud credentials or other deletion tools in the sibling list. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation ('Remove'), but fails to specify critical details such as required permissions, whether the removal is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to the datastore after removal. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core action without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral risks, output expectations, or usage context, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'for a specific datastore', which hints at the 'id' parameter's purpose, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify the format or constraints of the 'id'. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds minimal value beyond what is obvious from the tool name and context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target resource ('latency settings for a specific datastore'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Remove' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks necessary context about risks, permissions, outcomes, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema (e.g., what 'id' represents, format, or examples). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of semantic explanation keeps it at an adequate level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('Microsoft Entra ID tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'DeleteEntraIDTenants' vs 'DeleteUser' or 'DeleteBackup', but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'DeleteUser' or 'DeleteBackup'), prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is a simple statement without context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove a VM from the global exclusion list,' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if protection resumes), error conditions, or confirmation steps. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and usage context. For a mutation tool that could have significant side effects, more completeness is needed to guide safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond what is inferred from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target resource ('a VM from the global exclusion list'), which matches the tool name. It is specific enough to understand the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateGlobalVMExclusion' or 'GetGlobalVMExclusion', though the verb 'Remove' implies a deletion operation distinct from creation or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context such as whether the VM must already be on the exclusion list, what happens after removal, or if there are dependencies. Without such information, the agent has minimal direction for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether associated backups are affected, or what happens if the job is running. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, prerequisites, and consequences given the tool's potential impact. The current description provides only basic purpose information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no parameter information. However, with only one required parameter and a straightforward naming convention, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema structure alone provides minimal but adequate parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a job from the Veeam Backup server'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteBackupObject' that perform similar deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., job must be stopped), consequences, or comparison with related tools like 'DisableJob' or 'DeleteBackup' that might affect jobs indirectly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Remove a KMS server' without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation/error responses. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation behavior, error conditions, or what happens to associated resources, leaving significant gaps for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, but the description doesn't add any parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., server identifier, name) or format requirements. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context in the description reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a KMS server' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (KMS server), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteManagedServer or DeleteRepository, which follow similar naming patterns for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the KMS server must be inactive), exclusions, or related tools like UpdateKMSServer or GetAllKMSServers that might be used first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated backups or configurations, or what happens to the server's data. For a destructive 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or parameter meaning. Given the complexity of server removal in backup infrastructure, more context about consequences and requirements would be necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all, providing no additional semantic context beyond what the bare schema indicates. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline remains at 3 as the agent can infer it's an identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a server from the backup infrastructure'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., DeleteBackup, DeleteCreds, DeleteUser), which all perform similar removal operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools performing deletions on various resources (e.g., DeleteBackup, DeleteCreds), there is no indication of when this specific server removal is appropriate versus other deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether removal is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., backups), or any confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like behavioral consequences, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it safely or correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but 'Remove a protection group' implies an identifier is needed. Since there's only one parameter, the context is clear enough to infer its purpose, compensating somewhat for the lack of schema details. However, it doesn't specify the ID format or source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a protection group' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('protection group'), but it's somewhat vague about what removal entails (permanent deletion, archival, or disabling). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'DeleteProtectionGroup' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'DisableProtectionGroup', though 'DeleteBackup' and 'DeleteBackupObject' suggest a deletion pattern. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Sibling tools include 'DisableProtectionGroup' and 'DeleteBackupObject', implying potential alternatives for deactivation or deletion, but the description doesn't mention these or any prerequisites (e.g., ensure no active jobs). Without such context, an agent might misuse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated backups, or what happens to the repository's contents. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action ('Remove a backup repository').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like irreversible consequences, permission requirements, or what the tool returns upon completion. Given the complexity of repository deletion in backup systems, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no descriptions for the 'id' property), the description doesn't compensate by explaining what the ID represents or where to find it. However, since there's only one parameter and it's clearly labeled 'id', the baseline is 3 as the schema provides minimal but adequate structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a backup repository' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('backup repository'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'DeleteScaleOutRepository' or 'DeleteRepository' (if that exists elsewhere), which might perform similar deletion operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 performing deletion operations (e.g., DeleteBackup, DeleteScaleOutRepository, DeleteCloudCreds), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific to backup repositories or any prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Remove' implying a destructive operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated backups, or has confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, consequences, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, with only one parameter, the agent can infer it identifies the repository to delete. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but the simplicity of a single ID parameter keeps this from being a lower score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('Scale-Out Backup Repository'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteRepository' or 'DeleteScaleOutExtentMaintenanceMode', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many deletion-related siblings (e.g., 'DeleteRepository', 'DeleteBackupObject'), the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Remove' without clarifying if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., data loss, dependency breaks). It misses critical behavioral details for a destructive operation, though it correctly implies mutation without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical context like confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens post-removal, leaving significant gaps for safe agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, and the description adds no parameter details. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward tool name, the baseline is 3 as the agent can infer 'id' refers to the data source identifier, though explicit guidance would improve clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('unstructured data source'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'unstructured data source' or differentiate from similar deletion tools like DeleteRepository or DeleteManagedServer, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the data source must be idle or backed up), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like CreateUnstructuredDataServer or GetAllUnstructuredDataServers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool disables a job to prevent scheduled execution, which implies a mutation (non-destructive, reversible change). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the job can be re-enabled, side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Disable a job') and adds clarifying context ('prevents scheduled execution') in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, and the effect on job state, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of 'id', examples, or constraints). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable') and resource ('a job') with a specific effect ('prevents scheduled execution'). It distinguishes from 'EnableJob' by indicating opposite functionality, though it doesn't explicitly mention other job-related tools like 'DeleteJob' or 'UpdateJob'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteJob' or 'UpdateJob' is provided. The description implies it's for preventing scheduled execution, but lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when disabling is preferred over other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('Disable'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated backups, or any side effects. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details about behavioral implications, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('id'), the description doesn't compensate by explaining what the 'id' represents (e.g., proxy identifier). However, the baseline is 3 since the schema fully defines the parameter structure, even without descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable') and the target resource ('a backup proxy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'EnableProxy', but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or consequences. The description is a standalone statement without context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a state change operation ('Enable'), but doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens if the proxy is already enabled. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'enabling' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or provide any error handling context. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. However, with only one parameter, the agent can infer it's likely a proxy identifier. The description adds no value beyond what's obvious from the schema structure, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable') and resource ('a backup proxy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DisableProxy' or 'CreateProxy', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'CreateProxy' or 'DisableProxy', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the proxy must exist or be in a specific state). It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves sessions with status, progress, and result, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with 13 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates core information without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and a hint of usage but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and output information. For a tool with extensive filtering capabilities, this is insufficient to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters undocumented. This is inadequate for a tool with many filtering options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 all backup/restore sessions with status, progress and result.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('backup/restore sessions'), and key attributes returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllTaskSessions' or 'GetAllAutomationSessions', which might have overlapping functions, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this to check SLA and job health.' This implies the tool is for monitoring and health checks, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'GetAll' tools for sessions), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or provides any output format details. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, or output structure, which are important for a tool that retrieves a specific resource. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter 'ID' ('by ID'), which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add details like ID format, examples, or constraints. With one parameter and some semantic context, it meets the baseline for minimal parameter information but doesn't compensate fully for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific authorization event by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'GetAllAuthorizationEvents' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than all items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'Get' tools that might retrieve different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing authorization event ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetAllAuthorizationEvents' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what data is returned. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, authentication requirements, and usage context, leaving significant 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter 'id' refers to an automation session ID. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, constraints, or where to obtain it. Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation warrants a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific automation session by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAutomationSessions' or 'GetAutomationSessionLogs', but the specificity of retrieving by ID is adequately conveyed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllAutomationSessions' or 'GetSession'. The description implies usage when you have a specific session ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, status). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific backup dataset by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) but lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, and fails to differentiate from many sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with zero annotation support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter 'ID' ('by ID'), which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating it's for a 'specific backup dataset', but doesn't explain ID syntax or examples, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific backup dataset by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetBackupObject' or 'GetBackupFile' that might retrieve similar backup-related information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetBackupObject', 'GetBackupFile', and 'GetAllBackups' that could overlap in functionality, there's no explicit or implied context for choosing this specific tool, leaving a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it retrieves a record but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, response format, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (retrieving sensitive credentials), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address security implications, response structure, or error conditions, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'id' parameter is for retrieving a specific cloud credentials record. However, it doesn't elaborate on the ID format (e.g., UUID, string pattern) or provide examples, which is a missed opportunity given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific cloud credentials record by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllCloudCreds' or 'GetCloudCredsHelperAppliance', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllCloudCreds' for listing all records or 'BrowseCloudEntity' for browsing. It also lacks prerequisites such as authentication requirements or ID format expectations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of the returned credentials record. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get', 'specific credentials record', 'by ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'credentials record' contains, how the ID is obtained, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that retrieves sensitive data like credentials, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'id' parameter is for retrieving 'a specific credentials record'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it doesn't provide details like ID format, examples, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific credentials record by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllCreds' or 'GetCloudCreds', but the specificity of 'by ID' provides adequate clarity for a basic retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllCreds' or 'GetCloudCreds'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single record when you have its ID, but it doesn't explicitly state this as a usage rule or mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a data retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 'id' of type string. The description adds minimal context by implying 'id' refers to a datastore identifier, but doesn't clarify format, scope, or examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves key details unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('latency settings for a specific datastore'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' and 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings' by specifying retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'GetStorageLatencySettings', which might be a related sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetStorageLatencySettings' or other data retrieval tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a password but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool accessing sensitive data like encryption passwords, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (retrieving sensitive encryption passwords), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details make the description insufficient. It doesn't address security implications, output structure, or error conditions, which are critical 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by specifying that the 'id' parameter is used to identify a specific encryption password. However, it doesn't explain the format or source of the ID (e.g., whether it's a UUID, name, or other identifier), leaving ambiguity. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the incomplete semantic detail reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific encryption password by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllEncryptionPasswords' or 'VerifyEncryptionPassword', but the specificity of 'by ID' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllEncryptionPasswords' (for listing all passwords) or 'VerifyEncryptionPassword' (for validation). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the password ID, or context about when this retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 mentions 'by ID', which adds minimal context about the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving the schema to define the type without semantic enrichment. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific global VM exclusion by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllGlobalVMExclusions' or 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion', which would require explicit comparison for a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'GetAllGlobalVMExclusions' for listing all exclusions or 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion' for removal). The description assumes the user knows the context, offering no explicit usage instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned (e.g., mount details, status), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or how to obtain the 'mountId.' For a tool that likely returns structured mount details, more context is needed to make it actionable without relying on external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a specific instant file share recovery mount point,' which implies the 'mountId' parameter identifies this mount, adding some context. However, it doesn't explain the format, source, or constraints of 'mountId' (e.g., from a list operation). With one parameter and partial semantic help, this meets the baseline for minimal adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific instant file share recovery mount point'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMounts' by specifying retrieval of a single mount point rather than all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'Get' tools for different resource types, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 mount ID from a list operation), compare it to sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMounts' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases (e.g., checking mount status). Without this context, users must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned (e.g., mount details, status), or any side effects (e.g., if it triggers refresh). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving a specific mount point), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, or how the mountId is obtained, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies a 'mountId' parameter by referring to 'a specific' mount point, but doesn't explain what this ID is (e.g., format, source) or provide examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('VMware VM instant recovery mount point'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantViVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetInstantHvVMRecoveryMount', which would require mentioning this retrieves a single mount by ID rather than all mounts or mounts for other hypervisors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mount ID), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'GetAllInstantViVMRecoveryMounts' for listing all mounts), or specify use cases (e.g., checking mount status before unmounting).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), rate limits, or what 'job configuration' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Get a specific job configuration') and efficiently states the parameter context ('by its ID'), 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'job configuration' includes, how to handle errors, or what the return value looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value (it clarifies the parameter's role) but doesn't compensate fully for the lack of schema documentation, such as specifying ID format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific job configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllJobs' or 'GetAllJobsStates', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval method versus list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'GetAllJobs', 'GetAllJobsStates', and 'GetJob' (this tool), the description lacks context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus listing operations, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., server status, configuration). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key information ('Get details of a specific managed server') and adds necessary qualification ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., server properties, status), potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation in a server management context, more context on the return value and behavior is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter 'by ID', which aligns with the single required 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID for a managed server) but doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric, UUID), source, or validation rules. With low coverage, it partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific managed server by ID'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'GetAllManagedServers' (which lists all) and 'UpdateManagedServer' (which modifies), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllManagedServers' or 'GetManagedServerVolume'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid server ID) or contextual constraints. Usage is implied by the phrase 'by ID', but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get volumes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool interacting with Hyper-V servers), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'volumes' entail, the return format, or any operational context, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the schema alone defines the input. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides the necessary structure, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('volumes for a Microsoft Hyper-V standalone server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetManagedServer' or 'GetAllManagedServers', which reduces the score from 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'GetManagedServer', 'GetAllManagedServers'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies safety, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key information. 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and usage context, which are crucial even for basic tools. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it fails to provide complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage by indicating it's used to identify a specific mount server. However, it doesn't specify the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving the parameter only partially documented. With low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific mount server by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling 'GetAllMountServers' by specifying retrieval of a single item, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllMountServers' or 'GetDefaultMountServer'. The description implies usage when you have a specific ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential information ('Get a specific restore point by ID') efficiently, 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.
Completeness2/5
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 description coverage (0%), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with backup/restore systems, more information is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 specifying that the 'id' parameter is used to identify 'a specific restore point'. However, it doesn't explain the format, source, or constraints of the ID (e.g., whether it's a UUID, numeric, or from another tool). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific restore point by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint', but the specificity of 'by ID' implies a single-item retrieval versus bulk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' is provided. The description implies usage when you have a specific restore point ID, but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'protected' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what 'protected' means, potential return values, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use in a broader system context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter 'ID' as the way to specify the computer, which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add details like ID format, examples, or constraints beyond what's implied. With one parameter and minimal schema info, it meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific protected Linux computer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the target is identified by ID, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProtectedComputers' (plural) or other computer-related tools, missing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the computer ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'GetProtectedComputers' for listing multiple computers. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns detailed or summary data, handles errors, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or operational context, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'id' parameter, which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like the ID format, examples, or constraints. The baseline is 3 because the description compensates minimally for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific backup proxy by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllProxies' or 'GetProxy' (if multiple GetProxy tools exist), 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllProxies' or 'GetProxiesStates'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid proxy ID, or when this tool is appropriate over other retrieval methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Get a specific SOBR by ID'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on SOBR meaning, ID sourcing, error conditions, and return values, which are essential for proper tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 mentions the parameter 'ID' and implies it's used to identify a specific SOBR, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what a SOBR is (Scale-Out Backup Repository), the ID format, or where to obtain it, leaving the parameter partially documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific SOBR by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllScaleOutRepositories' or 'GetRepository', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single entity by identifier rather than listing all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing a valid SOBR ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetAllScaleOutRepositories' for bulk retrieval or 'GetRepository' for different repository types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what 'details' includes in the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get details for a specific session by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential errors, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'id' parameter ('by ID'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., numeric, string, UUID) or where to find it, leaving significant gaps despite the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('for a specific session by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetSessionLogs', but it's specific enough to understand what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllSessions' or 'GetSessionLogs'. It mentions the ID parameter but doesn't explain where to obtain it or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no settings exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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, which is ideal for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'storage latency control settings' entail, the format of the returned data, or potential error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for, and it correctly implies no inputs are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get storage latency control settings' clearly indicates a retrieval action ('Get') on a specific resource ('storage latency control settings'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar 'Get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings'), making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'UpdateStorageLatencySettings' and 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings' present, there's no indication of differences in scope (e.g., storage vs. datastore) or when one should be preferred over the other, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves an event without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors—critical gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, permissions, or operational context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex malware event data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description specifies the 'id' parameter is used to get 'a specific malware event', adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving the schema to fully define the parameter. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides baseline compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific malware event by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' (plural) or 'GetAllSuspiciousActivityEvent' (if it existed), which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an event ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' for listing events, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks completeness for effective use—missing details on error cases, response structure, and differentiation from siblings, which are crucial in a server with many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter ('by ID'), which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description doesn't add details like ID format or constraints. It compensates minimally by indicating the parameter's purpose, but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific task session by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllTaskSessions' or 'GetSessionTaskSessionsWithFiltering', but the specificity of retrieving a single session by ID is adequately conveyed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'GetAllTaskSessions' and 'GetSessionTaskSessionsWithFiltering' available, it doesn't specify scenarios where retrieving a single session by ID is preferred over listing or filtering multiple sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential errors, or the format of returned data, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the key information appropriately, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., recovery operations), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'id' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type. It fails to explain what the ID represents, its format, or where to obtain it, so it only meets the baseline for minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific unstructured data source by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllUnstructuredDataServers' or 'GetUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings', which would require more specificity 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetAllUnstructuredDataServers' for listing all sources or 'GetUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' for related configurations. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieving by ID but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. For a read 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., authentication), error cases, or output structure, making it incomplete for reliable agent use despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 specifying that the 'id' parameter is for a user or group. However, it doesn't detail the ID format (e.g., numeric, string pattern) or examples. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of format details reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific user or group'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes between user and group retrieval, which is helpful, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewAllUsers' or 'GetAllUsers' (implied by sibling list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., 'ViewAllUsers' for listing all users or 'GetAllUsers' from siblings). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and return values, which are critical for effective use. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too many unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter is an identifier, but doesn't specify format (e.g., string pattern, UUID) or constraints, resulting in a baseline score due to low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific WAN accelerator by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllWANAccelerators', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllWANAccelerators' or other retrieval tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid WAN accelerator ID, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Reset MFA' implies a write operation that likely requires administrative privileges, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether the reset is immediate or requires user confirmation, what happens to existing MFA methods, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security-sensitive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a security-sensitive mutation (MFA reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like required permissions, behavioral consequences (e.g., does it force re-enrollment?), and response format, which are essential for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 information. The description mentions 'for a specific user,' which implies the 'id' parameter identifies a user, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., username, email, UUID) or provide examples, leaving the parameter only partially clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset MFA') and target ('for a specific user'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'DisableMfa' or 'EnableMfa' that might exist in other contexts, though none are listed in the provided sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Retry' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to the original failed job, whether retry attempts are limited, or what the expected outcome looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single four-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for such a straightforward operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'failed job', what the retry process entails, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools, though the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retry') and target resource ('a failed job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling operations like 'StartJob' or 'CloneJob' that might also initiate job execution, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'StartJob' or 'CloneJob' for similar purposes. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., only works on jobs in a failed state) or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a revocation action, implying a destructive mutation, but does not specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the workload after revocation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Revoke'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'instanceId' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the parameter undocumented. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies the tool operates on a workload but does not add meaningful details about parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema minimally provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Revoke') and target ('a capacity license from an unstructured data workload'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'RemoveInstanceLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', which appear to handle similar license operations but for different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'RemoveInstanceLicense' and 'RevokeInstanceLicense' present, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without context for selecting the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Revoke' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects system functionality, or what happens to the host after revocation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of revocation, success/failure responses, error conditions, or system impact. Given the complexity of license management and the presence of similar sibling tools, more context is needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'from a specific host' which aligns with the single 'hostId' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no documentation about this parameter. The description adds minimal semantic context (it's a host identifier) but doesn't specify format, validation rules, or where to obtain this ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there's only one parameter and the description provides basic mapping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Revoke') and target resource ('a socket license from a specific host'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'RevokeCapacityLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense' that also revoke licenses, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific revocation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RevokeCapacityLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense'. It mentions the target ('from a specific host') but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for using this revocation operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sends an email, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if email settings are invalid, if it's rate-limited, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success/failure notification). 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 ('Send a test email') and purpose ('to verify email settings'), making it easy to parse. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'verify email settings' entails, what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error details), or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send a test email to verify email settings' clearly states the verb ('Send') and resource ('test email'), but it's somewhat vague about the exact purpose. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'test email' (e.g., content, recipient) or what 'verify email settings' means operationally. It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on email verification, but lacks the specificity needed for a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., email settings must be configured), when-not-to-use scenarios, or related tools (e.g., 'UpdateEmailSettings' for configuration). The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a mutation that terminates something, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., data loss), or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the description adds no value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and the target resource ('a running automation session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'stop' tools in the sibling list like StopJob, StopSession, StopEntraIDAuditLogMount, etc., which would require more specificity about what makes an 'automation session' distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other stop-related tools in the sibling list, such as StopJob or StopSession. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'unmounts' a session, implying a destructive operation that terminates an active restore session, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether data loss occurs, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It should explain what 'unmounting' entails, potential side effects, prerequisites, and expected outcomes to be complete enough for safe agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention the sessionId parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. However, since there's only one required parameter and the tool name/description imply it identifies a session, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't worsen the situation either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unmount') and the target resource ('a Microsoft Entra ID tenant restore session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' or 'StopFlrMount' that also unmount different types of sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention what constitutes a valid sessionId or when this operation is appropriate versus other stop/unmount operations in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Stop' implies a mutation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the stop is immediate or graceful, what happens to partial job results, or if the job can be resumed later. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 ('Stop a currently running job'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, permissions), parameter details, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., job ID format, where to find it) or provide examples. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter details in the description reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('a currently running job'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DisableJob' or 'DeleteJob', which might have similar-sounding functions but different effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'DisableJob' (which might prevent future runs) or 'DeleteJob' (which might remove it entirely). It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the job must be running) or consequences (e.g., whether it can be restarted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Stop' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to session data, or any side effects like cleanup. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds no value beyond the schema. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a running session' clearly states the action (stop) and target resource (session). It distinguishes from siblings like StopJob, StopAutomationSession, and StopFlrMount by being generic to sessions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these specific session types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like StopJob, StopAutomationSession, and StopFlrMount, the description doesn't clarify whether this is a generic session stopper or specific to certain session types, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Edit/update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'job configuration' entails, the structure of the 'body' object, possible outcomes, or error handling. For a tool that modifies existing resources, this leaves too much undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving both 'id' and 'body' completely undocumented. However, with only 2 parameters, the baseline is higher; the description implies an 'id' for an existing job and a 'body' for configuration, but adds no specifics on format, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit/update') and resource ('an existing job configuration'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'CreateJob' and 'DeleteJob' by specifying it's for existing jobs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'UpdateProtectionGroup' or 'UpdateProxy' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 job ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'CloneJob' or 'DisableJob'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., role name, permissions, metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential errors, or system constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't clarify the ID format (e.g., numeric, UUID), source, or validation rules. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, meeting the baseline for a single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('specific role by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewAllUserRoles' or 'ViewUserRolePermissions', which would require explicit comparison to earn a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ViewAllUserRoles' or 'GetUserRoles'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only verification action ('Request'), which implies no destructive changes, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the request fails. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: action, resource, and purpose. There's no wasted text, and it's structured to convey the essential details without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameter format, expected output, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a verification tool in a security context, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., server address, port, protocol) or provide any parameter semantics. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate for a tool with a nested object parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a TLS certificate or SSH fingerprint from a server to verify its identity before adding.' It specifies the verb ('Request'), resource ('TLS certificate or SSH fingerprint'), and context ('before adding'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetServerCertificate' or 'ChangeCloudCertificate', which appear to handle certificates differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('before adding'), suggesting this tool is for verification prior to adding a server. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetServerCertificate' or 'ChangeCloudCertificate', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, returns a single server or a list, or has any side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what a 'default mount server' means in this system and how it differs from other mount server tools, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the default mount server' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('default mount server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetMountServer' or 'GetAllMountServers', leaving ambiguity about what makes this 'default' version distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetMountServer' and 'GetAllMountServers' present, there's no indication of whether this retrieves a pre-configured default, a system-wide setting, or serves a different use case, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'email notification settings' entails (e.g., user-level vs system-wide), which could help the agent understand the scope. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get email notification settings' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'email notification settings', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetNotificationsSettings' or 'UpdateEmailSettings', which would require more specificity about scope or format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context (e.g., user permissions), or compare it to related tools like 'GetNotificationsSettings' or 'UpdateEmailSettings', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the returned information includes (e.g., license type, expiration). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned license information entails (e.g., details like license key, status, features) or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this omission reduces its usefulness for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('installed license information on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity', 'GetLicensedInstances', or 'GetLicensedSockets', which also retrieve license-related data but focus on specific aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context (e.g., after installing a license), or compare it to sibling tools that handle license operations (e.g., 'InstallLicense', 'RenewInstalledLicense', 'RemoveLicense').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the schedule data looks like. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (verb + resource) and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is minimal but functional. However, for a tool that presumably returns schedule data, the description doesn't explain what format or structure the schedule information will have, leaving the agent without important contextual understanding. It's complete enough to identify the tool but not to fully understand its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it adequate for this parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Security & Compliance Analyzer schedule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'Get' tools in the sibling list (like GetSecurityAnalyzerSession), so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like GetSecurityAnalyzerSession or ModifySecurityAnalyzerSchedule, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what data format is returned, or if it's cached/live. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'last run' entails (e.g., status, results, timestamps) or the return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('last run of the Security & Compliance Analyzer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer', but the focus on 'last run' provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' (for schedule details) or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' (to initiate a new run). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return value contains (e.g., certificate details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves security-sensitive data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of certificate retrieval (a security-related operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed) or what the tool returns (e.g., certificate format). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, and thus adds no extra value but meets the baseline for this scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('TLS certificate of the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetConnectionCertificate' or 'ChangeKMServerCertificate', which also involve certificates, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other certificate-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'refresh their configuration,' implying a read/write operation that updates server states, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is disruptive (e.g., causes downtime), requires permissions, has side effects, or involves asynchronous processing. For a zero-parameter tool that likely triggers system-wide actions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs system-wide operations. It omits behavioral details (e.g., impact, async nature, permissions) and doesn't clarify the scope of 'configuration' refresh. For a zero-parameter tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rescan') and target ('all managed servers') with the specific purpose 'to refresh their configuration.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'RescanManagedServer' (singular) by specifying 'all' servers, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other rescan tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'RescanManagedServer' (for individual servers) or 'RescanProtectionGroup'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or consequences, leaving the agent with no usage criteria beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Reset' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what side effects occur, or if it triggers alerts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Reset') and target, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'reset' entails (e.g., clearing compliance flags, reverting to baseline), potential impacts, or return values. Given the complexity implied by 'all' statuses and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and the target resource ('all Security & Compliance Analyzer statuses'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ResetBestPracticesComplianceStatus' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tool 'ResetBestPracticesComplianceStatus' (singular reset), an agent would not know whether to use this tool for bulk operations or specific cases without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Start an immediate configuration backup' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, if it's asynchronous, what happens if a backup is already running, or if it impacts system performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary information, making it optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'configuration backup' in a system with many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes, and offers no context on prerequisites, side effects, or success criteria. For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters either. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target ('configuration backup'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'GetConfigBackupOptions' or 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions', which would require more specific context about what makes this backup 'immediate' versus scheduled alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'StartJob', 'StartHealthCheckBackup', and 'StartMalwareBackupScan', there's no indication of whether this is for ad-hoc backups, emergency scenarios, or routine maintenance. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the initiation action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific permissions, what happens upon completion, or any side effects like resource consumption or notifications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely initiates a complex process. It doesn't explain what the analyzer does beyond 'check', how results are accessed, or any operational implications, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing solely on the tool's purpose, which aligns with the schema's emptiness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target ('Security & Compliance Analyzer') with its purpose ('to check the backup infrastructure against best practices'). It specifies what the tool initiates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSession' or 'ModifySecurityAnalyzerSchedule'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or related tools like 'GetBestPracticesComplianceResult' for checking results, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an 'unmount' operation (implying mutation/destruction), but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unmount' entails operationally, what happens to the session/data, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only 1 parameter (sessionId) and 0% schema description coverage, it implies the parameter through context ('a file restore session'). This provides marginal semantic value beyond the bare schema. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here we have 1 undocumented parameter, so 4 reflects reasonable compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unmount') and the resource ('a file restore session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount', which perform similar unmount operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It doesn't reference sibling tools like 'StartFlrMount' (which likely creates the session) or other unmount tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, if it requires permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, which are important for a read operation in a network context. It meets the minimum viable standard but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for missing information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all network traffic rules configured on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'UpdateTrafficRules' or others that might interact with traffic rules, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for listing all rules at once, or if there are filtered or paginated alternatives among the siblings. Without such context, the agent lacks usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get configuration backup settings (schedule, repository, encryption).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheses to list examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or usage context. For a read operation with no parameters, this is acceptable 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.
Parameters4/5
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%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 configuration backup settings (schedule, repository, encryption).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('configuration backup settings'), with examples of what settings are included. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' or 'StartConfigBackup', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for usage, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' and 'StartConfigBackup', the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all settings or requires filtering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool retrieves but lacks context about the return format, scope of settings, or how it fits into broader workflows. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('event forwarding settings'), specifying the types of settings (SNMP, syslog, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on event forwarding settings rather than other configuration areas, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'Get' tools like 'GetEmailSettings' or 'GetNotificationsSettings'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for usage, or exclusions. While the name implies it's for retrieving settings, there's no explicit direction on when this is appropriate compared to other configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns cached or real-time data, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format, which could be helpful for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable given the schema completeness, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('default set of optional managed server components'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetManagedServer' or 'UpdateServerComponents', which could provide similar or related information about server components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetManagedServer' for detailed server info or 'UpdateServerComponents' for modifying components. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether it returns all settings or a subset, or error conditions. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get notification settings') and adds clarifying examples ('on-screen alerts, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the return format, permissions, or relationship to other settings tools. For a simple read operation, it meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide a complete picture for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'notification settings', with specific examples like 'on-screen alerts, etc.' This makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for retrieval, or contrast with related tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), 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 how it behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool returns. It's front-loaded with the key information (the verb and resources) and contains no redundant or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what information is retrieved, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text) and any behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent integrating this into a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It earns a high score because it doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters and focuses on the output semantics instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('Veeam Backup & Replication installation ID, server name, build number, and patches'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on server metadata retrieval rather than operations like configuration or data management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'Get' tools (e.g., GetServerTime, GetServerCertificate), 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, context for usage, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., GetServerTime for time-specific info). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a rescan to refresh state and capacity, implying a read/write operation that updates repository metadata. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., temporary unavailability), or error conditions. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Rescan all repositories') and adds the rationale ('to refresh their state and capacity'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., execution time, permissions) and output details. For a tool that likely performs a system-wide operation, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the bare minimum for a no-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rescan') and target ('all repositories') with the purpose 'to refresh their state and capacity.' It's specific about the verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanManagedServer' which 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after configuration changes), frequency, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return data looks like. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, and baseline 4 applies as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('MFA settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ViewAllUsers' or 'UpdateUsersSettings', but it's specific enough to avoid confusion with unrelated tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ViewAllUsers' or 'GetUser'. The description implies it's for retrieving MFA settings, but it doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, or output format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, resulting in an average score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral aspects, or output, which could be helpful for an agent in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available roles in Veeam Backup & Replication'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetUserRoles' or 'ViewUserRole', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'GetUserRoles' and 'ViewUserRole' present, there is no indication of differences in scope, filtering, or context, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not require authentication, which is helpful, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned time. It adequately describes a simple read operation but misses deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and authentication aspect, but lacks details on the return value format or potential errors, which could be useful for a time-fetching tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but does not compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('current date and time on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on time retrieval without any filtering or configuration aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'Does not require authentication', which is useful for understanding when this tool can be invoked. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![veeam-mcp-13 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kid-boy/veeam-mcp-13/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kid-boy/veeam-mcp-13)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![veeam-mcp-13 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kid-boy/veeam-mcp-13/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kid-boy/veeam-mcp-13)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kid-boy/veeam-mcp-13'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server