Server Quality Checklist
- Disambiguation2/5
Severe overlap exists between parallel Apple and Microsoft tool sets (e.g., send_email vs outlook_send_email, list_emails vs outlook_list_emails, create_calendar_event vs outlook_create_event). Agents cannot easily distinguish which ecosystem a tool targets without carefully reading descriptions, and complete_reminder vs complete_omnifocus_task overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency2/5Inconsistent application of app prefixes: Microsoft tools use app_verb pattern (outlook_send_email, excel_create, onedrive_list_files) while Apple native apps often omit prefixes (create_note, send_email, create_calendar_event). Mixed naming conventions between verb_noun and app_verb patterns, plus inconsistent abbreviation usage (ppt vs excel vs word).
Tool Count1/566 tools is extreme (50+ threshold) for a productivity automation server. The surface suffers from poor consolidation—operations like list/read/search are duplicated across nearly every integrated app (Mail, Outlook, Notes, OneDrive, Finder, etc.) rather than using generic tools with app parameters. This creates an unmaintainable and overwhelming tool surface.
Completeness3/5Basic CRUD coverage is inconsistent across domains: OneDrive has full coverage, but Notes, Reminders, Contacts, and Calendar lack update/delete operations. Teams and iMessage support reading but not sending messages. Given the breadth, these gaps create dead ends where agents can create items but not modify or remove them.
Average 2.8/5 across 66 of 66 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.1.2
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
- This server provides 66 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- 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 provides none. It does not explain return format, pagination, rate limits, search result ordering, or what constitutes a match (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (3 words), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails the 'every sentence must earn its place' standard by providing no actionable information beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description fails to compensate by explaining default search behavior, result limits, or how to formulate queries. It leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke or interpret results from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, the baseline score for tools with no parameters is 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search Outlook emails' is tautological, merely restating the tool name with spaces. It fails to specify search scope (subject, body, sender), available filters, or how it differs from siblings like 'search_emails' (generic) or 'outlook_list_emails' (likely unfiltered retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'search_emails', 'outlook_list_emails', or 'read_email'. No mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or query syntax.
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 reveals nothing about side effects, return values, or the target system (e.g., Apple Reminders app). Critically, it fails to explain the anomaly of having zero input parameters for a 'create' operation, leaving agents unable to understand what data is actually required to create the reminder.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At four words, the description is technically concise, but the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks structural elements like scope clarification or behavioral caveats that would earn each sentence its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with an empty parameter schema and no output schema, the description is catastrophically incomplete. It does not explain how to specify reminder content, timing, lists, or any other essential attributes, nor does it clarify the discrepancy between the stated purpose and the lack of input parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, and per evaluation rules, 0 params receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are strictly required given the empty schema (though it should explain why the schema is empty).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new reminder' tautologically restates the tool name (create_reminder). While it identifies the basic action and resource, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like create_calendar_event, create_omnifocus_task, or create_note, leaving ambiguity about which productivity domain this targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_calendar_event for time-based alerts, create_omnifocus_task for project management). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned despite this being a creation operation.
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 provides none. It doesn't state whether writes are destructive, if the operation is idempotent, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or any rate limiting concerns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words) and front-loaded, but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. It wastes no words, but also fails to earn its place as a useful descriptor.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool writing to Excel files, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks file path references, cell addressing, data format specifications, output confirmation, and safety warnings. The empty parameter schema suggests this may be a documentation error, but as presented, context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains 0 parameters with 100% description coverage. Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write data to Excel cells' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name (excel_write_cell). It fails to distinguish from siblings like excel_create or excel_read, and doesn't clarify scope (e.g., does it overwrite existing cells, create new files, or require an existing workbook?).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus excel_create or excel_read. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must exist first), data format requirements, or error conditions.
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 entirely. It does not explain what search criteria are used (filename, content, metadata), how results are ranked, authentication requirements, or the critical anomaly of having zero input parameters for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized at four words and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to earn its place by adding substantive value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and query parameters (highly unusual for a search tool), the description should compensate by explaining the search mechanism, return format, or default behavior. It provides none of this, leaving critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search files in OneDrive' is tautological, restating the tool name with minimal conversion to natural language. While it identifies the resource (OneDrive files) and action (search), it fails to distinguish from sibling tool onedrive_list_files or clarify the search scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus onedrive_list_files or other OneDrive operations. The description does not address the lack of query parameters or explain how the search functionality operates without input criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose what happens when invoked (where the request is sent, authentication requirements, persistence, or side effects). The agent cannot determine if this creates a local file, sends an API request, or opens a UI.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads no useful information beyond the name itself, failing to earn its place in the tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the tool's mechanism and scope. It provides insufficient context for an agent to understand what domain the feature request applies to or what the user should expect upon invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. While the description does not explain why parameters are absent or how the feature request content is captured (e.g., via UI), there are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Request a new feature' restates the tool name (tautology) without specifying what product/system the feature is for or how it differs from siblings like 'report_bug' or 'request_integration'. It provides only a generic verb+noun with no domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'report_bug' or 'request_integration', nor any indication of prerequisites or expected input mechanisms (e.g., whether it opens a dialog or requires clipboard content).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits but offers none. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, conflict handling (e.g., overlapping events), or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words), but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. No critical information is front-loaded because none is provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having zero schema parameters, the description is inadequate for a creation tool. It fails to explain how event details (title, time, etc.) are specified given the empty parameter schema, nor does it describe success/failure behaviors or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new calendar event' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling 'outlook_create_event' or specify which calendar system (e.g., Apple Calendar) it targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'outlook_create_event', nor any mention of prerequisites such as calendar permissions, default calendar selection, or required event fields.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain which email is read (critical given the empty parameter schema), whether the operation marks emails as read, or what data structure is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at four words, but this conciseness comes at the cost of utility. While not verbose, it fails to front-load critical context about the tool's operation or identifier requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (zero parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not resolve the ambiguity of how the target email is specified given the empty input schema, nor does it describe return values or side effects expected from an email reading operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, 0 params = baseline 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read an Outlook email' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It fails to specify what 'read' entails (fetch body, metadata, attachments?) or distinguish from sibling tools like read_email (generic) vs outlook_list_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_email, outlook_search_emails, or outlook_list_emails. The description does not indicate prerequisites or selection criteria.
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. However, it reveals nothing about what data is returned (tag names, IDs, hierarchies), whether archived tags are included, performance characteristics, or side effects. The agent knows only that it 'lists' tags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. It is front-loaded in the sense that the entire content is immediately visible, but no sentence earns its place by adding value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite zero parameters simplifying requirements, the description is incomplete. Without an output schema or annotations, it should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., 'returns all available tags') and scope limitations. It fails to provide the minimum context needed for an agent to predict the tool's utility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (of an empty schema), the baseline score applies. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters, as there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List OmniFocus tags' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with spaces instead of underscores. While it identifies the verb (List) and resource (OmniFocus tags), it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like list_omnifocus_projects, list_omnifocus_tasks, or search_omnifocus_tasks, leaving the agent uncertain 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not indicate whether this returns all tags or supports filtering, nor does it reference related tools like search_omnifocus_tasks for filtered lookups versus this unfiltered list 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this sends invitations to attendees, handles timezone conflicts, requires specific Outlook permissions, or what happens upon success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), the description suffers from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing information not already evident in the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling calendar tools and the unusual empty parameter schema, the description should explain Outlook-specific context or how the event creation works without parameters. It provides none of this necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object). Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4 for this dimension as there are no semantics to clarify beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Outlook calendar event' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name (outlook_create_event) with minor grammatical changes. While it identifies the action and target system, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'create_calendar_event' or specify scope 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this Outlook-specific tool versus the sibling 'create_calendar_event' (likely for Apple Calendar given the ecosystem context). No mention of prerequisites, required authentication, or when not 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to explain search behavior (substring vs exact match, case sensitivity), result limits, or authentication requirements. Critically, it does not address the discrepancy between described parameters and the empty schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently conveys intent without redundancy. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of necessary context regarding schema mismatch and behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fails to compensate for the empty input schema and lack of output schema. Missing critical context: differentiation from outlook_search_emails, explanation of the described search parameters versus actual schema, and return value description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0 parameters in the schema (baseline 4), the description explicitly references three parameters (keyword, sender, date range) that do not exist in the input schema. This creates a misleading expectation of the tool's interface and will cause invocation errors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action (search emails) and identifies specific search dimensions (keyword, sender, date range) that distinguish it from simple listing tools like list_emails. However, the described parameters do not exist in the empty input schema, creating uncertainty about actual functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_emails (unfiltered listing), outlook_search_emails (Outlook-specific), or read_email (direct retrieval). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria 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 does not explain what 'full details' includes, error handling if contact not found, or whether this operation has 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but the 'by name' phrase wastes space by describing a parameter mechanism that doesn't exist in the schema. Every word should earn its place, and this one misleads.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema-description mismatch and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how to identify the target contact without parameters, nor what fields are returned in 'full details'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description mentions 'by name' implying a name parameter exists. This contradicts the empty input schema, creating confusion about how to specify which contact to retrieve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (Get full contact details) and target resource, but the phrase 'by name' creates confusion since the input schema has zero parameters. It fails to differentiate from siblings like 'search_contacts' or 'list_contacts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this single-contact retrieval tool versus 'search_contacts' (which supports filtering) or 'list_contacts'. The description lacks prerequisites or selection 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 full burden but discloses almost nothing. It does not define 'full content' (headers, body, attachments?), return format, rate limits, or side effects. The claim 'by ID' contradicts the empty input schema, suggesting either missing schema documentation or inaccurate description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief at six words, but underspecified given the lack of annotations and output schema. It attempts front-loading but sacrifices necessary behavioral context for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex email domain with multiple sibling tools (outlook_read_email, reply_email, etc.) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, account selection, or the relationship to other email tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the baseline for zero parameters is 4, the description mentions 'by ID' which implies an ID parameter that does not exist in the schema. This creates confusion about how to specify which email to read, making the description misleading rather than merely silent on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (read email content) and implies targeting by ID, but fails to distinguish from sibling 'outlook_read_email' or clarify which email provider/account it targets. The mention of 'by ID' creates confusion since the input schema shows zero parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'outlook_read_email', 'search_emails', or 'list_emails'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID from list_emails first) or whether this marks messages as read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet reveals nothing about case sensitivity, result ordering, result limits, or which task fields are indexed for search. It does not describe the return format or empty-result behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single three-word phrase. While not verbose, this represents under-specification rather than efficient information density. It is front-loaded but carries minimal semantic weight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools list_omnifocus_tasks and create_omnifocus_task, the description should clarify the search mechanism and differentiate listing from searching. Without output schema or parameter details, the description inadequately covers the tool's contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. No additional parameter context is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search OmniFocus tasks' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name without clarifying search scope (title, notes, project?) or syntax. It fails to distinguish from sibling tool list_omnifocus_tasks, leaving agents uncertain which to use for retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus list_omnifocus_tasks, nor any indication of search query syntax, wildcards, or filters. The description offers no prerequisites or conditions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether archived/dropped projects are included, if pagination occurs, what fields are returned, or any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words with no redundancy. While appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or filtering behavior. It omits critical context needed to distinguish this from similar list operations in the OmniFocus family.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List OmniFocus projects' is tautological—it merely restates the tool name (list_omnifocus_projects) without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish from siblings like list_omnifocus_tasks or list_omnifocus_tags, or clarify scope (e.g., active vs. dropped projects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_omnifocus_tasks or list_omnifocus_tags. No mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to indicate whether this returns metadata about lists, the number of lists, or full list contents, nor does it mention pagination or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief at four words, but suffers from underspecification rather than efficient information density. It is front-loaded by default due to its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple (no input parameters), the description is minimal viable. Without an output schema, the description should ideally characterize the return structure (e.g., array of list names/IDs), but the scope ('all') is at least specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all reminder lists' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minor variation (adding 'all'). It fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'list_reminders', which lists individual reminders rather than reminder lists/containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_reminders' or how it relates to the reminder management workflow. 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about the return format (folder hierarchy vs flat list), scope (all bookmarks vs favorites bar), or any system permissions required to access Safari data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words with no filler. However, it borders on under-specification given the lack of output schema. Every word earns its place, though additional content would improve utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, yet the description fails to document the return structure (e.g., whether it returns folder hierarchies, URLs, titles, or IDs). For a tool accessing browser data, documentation of the response format is essential and missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Per the scoring guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Safari bookmarks' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it clearly identifies the resource (Safari bookmarks) and action (list), it fails to add specificity or distinguish from sibling list_* tools beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searching bookmarks or accessing other browser data. No prerequisites or conditions 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails significantly. It doesn't specify return format (string, bytes, or object), encoding handling, size limits, error behavior for missing files, or how the target file is identified given the empty parameter schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded, but in this context, brevity becomes a liability. Given the empty parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is inadequately sized to explain the tool's operation or the parameter anomaly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple read operation, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and critically, no input parameters for file identification. The description fails to explain how the file target is specified, making it contextually incomplete for an agent attempting to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the scoring guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description has no parameter information to add, but given the unusual nature of a file-reading tool having no file path parameter, additional context would have been valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('file content from OneDrive'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'onedrive_list_files' or 'onedrive_search_files'. More critically, it doesn't address the absence of file identification parameters in the schema, leaving the agent confused about how to specify which file to read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'onedrive_list_files' for browsing vs reading), nor does it mention prerequisites or required context like file paths. The complete absence of parameters makes this omission particularly severe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. The word 'List' implies read-only, but description lacks pagination details, default date ranges (since schema has 0 params), rate limits, or whether it returns full event details vs. summaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (3 words), which technically avoids verbosity, but constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. No structural issues, but content is insufficient for the format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, default behavior (what time range is returned?), and any implicit limits. It provides none of this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline score applies per rubric. Description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (List) and resource (Outlook calendar events), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'list_calendar_events' (likely Apple Calendar) or clarify scope (upcoming vs. all events, date ranges).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_calendar_events', 'outlook_search_emails', or 'outlook_create_event'. No mention of prerequisites or filtering capabilities.
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 fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: how the target file is specified (critical given the empty input schema), the return format/structure, read-only safety, or content extraction limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is appropriately brief but overly minimal given the operational gaps. The absence of parameter explanation (due to 0 params) prevents a higher score, yet the sentence itself contains no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the empty input schema and lack of output schema, the description must explain how the target file is specified and what format data is returned in. It provides neither, rendering the tool potentially unusable without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Baseline score for zero-parameter tools. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist in the schema, though it misses the opportunity to explain the missing file path mechanism.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('PowerPoint file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ppt_create. However, it lacks specificity about what 'content' encompasses (slides, notes, text, images?).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_read or word_read, nor any mention of prerequisites or required setup (e.g., how to specify which file to read).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to specify how many messages are returned (recent N? all?), the sort order, whether the conversation is persisted as 'read', or how the target conversation is determined without input parameters. Only conveys that it is a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only 5 words, but this brevity crosses into under-specification given the ambiguity around how the tool identifies which conversation to read without parameters. No structural issues, but content is insufficient for the complexity implied.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that reading messages typically requires specifying a conversation/thread and the schema provides no parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain the implicit selection logic or output format, leaving an agent unable to predict what will be returned or from where.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the evaluation rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to describe, though it notably fails to explain the absence of parameters (e.g., implicit context usage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (read messages) and source (conversation), but is vague regarding which messaging platform (iMessage, Teams, generic?) and fails to differentiate from siblings like 'search_messages' or 'teams_read_chat_messages'. It leaves the critical question of 'which conversation' unanswered given the parameter-less schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_messages' (which supports filtering), 'teams_read_chat_messages', or 'read_email'. Does not explain the prerequisite of how a conversation is selected when no parameters 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 but adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'full' implying complete retrieval. It does not explain what data structure is returned, whether it includes metadata/attachments, or how the target note is determined without parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (3 words) and front-loaded, the extreme brevity becomes a liability given the confusing empty schema. The single sentence does not earn its place by resolving the critical ambiguity of how this tool identifies which note to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to explain the selection mechanism (e.g., reading a 'current' note) and return format. It leaves critical operational questions unanswered, making it inadequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description neither adds nor detracts from this baseline since it correctly omits parameter discussion (as there are none), though it fails to address the ambiguity of how note selection occurs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the verb (Read) and resource (note) with scope (full content), but is somewhat tautological ('read_note' → 'Read full note content'). Critically, it fails to explain how to specify which note to read given the empty parameter schema, nor does it distinguish from sibling search_notes or list_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_notes or list_notes. No mention of prerequisites, required context, or selection criteria given the lack of input parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies destruction, it fails to disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error handling, or explain the unusual absence of input parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words) with no redundancy, but severely under-specified for a destructive operation. The brevity reflects missing critical information rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely inadequate for a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an anomalous empty input schema. A delete tool requires explicit safety warnings, permanence disclosures, and parameter documentation, none of which are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. However, the description misses the opportunity to explain how the target file is identified without parameters (e.g., via context or conversation state).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (delete) and target (OneDrive file) but fails to clarify how the target file is specified given the empty parameter schema. Does not distinguish from sibling onedrive_move_file or explain the deletion scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives (like onedrive_move_file for 'deleting' by moving to trash), no prerequisites, and no warnings about the destructive nature of the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain critical traits: how content is passed (given zero parameters), whether the operation creates files if missing, formatting requirements, or side effects. It only repeats the tool name's implied action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critical information is missing: with no output schema, no annotations, and an empty parameter schema, the description should explain how the target document and content are specified (e.g., active document, clipboard, context). Without this, the tool is effectively unusable based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but no compensation is required given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (append content) and target resource (Word document), but fails to clarify how the tool identifies which document to modify given the empty parameter schema. It minimally distinguishes from siblings like word_create and word_read through the verb choice, but offers no scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like word_create or word_write_cell. It does not mention prerequisites, required application state (e.g., 'active document'), or workflow constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose return format, whether it reads the entire sheet or requires prior selection, or how it handles multiple sheets. 'Read' implies read-only, but no explicit safety confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is not verbose, but given the ambiguity of a zero-parameter read operation, the description is insufficiently sized. Front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to explain how the tool identifies which spreadsheet to read or what data structure it returns. Critical operational gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per calibration rules, 0 params equals baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic verb (Read) and resource (Excel spreadsheet) but lacks specificity on scope (which spreadsheet? what range? all data?). Does not differentiate from sibling tools like excel_write_cell or ppt_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus excel_write_cell or excel_create. No mention of prerequisites like file selection or open documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 it mentions searchable fields, it fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects such as return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or how the search is performed given the lack of input parameters. It does not clarify if the tool opens a UI or uses implicit context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only 6 words. While front-loaded and efficient in isolation, the brevity becomes a liability given the mismatch between the described search criteria and the empty parameter schema, leaving insufficient room to explain the tool's actual interface.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, annotations, or described parameters, the description is incomplete. The mention of search criteria that are not actual parameters creates a critical gap between described functionality and technical capability, and no information is provided about return values or error states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage of the empty set, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. The description mentions 'name, email, or phone' which attempts to add semantic meaning, though these fields are absent from the actual schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search) and resource (contacts) and specifies searchable fields (name, email, phone). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like get_contact or list_contacts, and critically, the mentioned search fields do not exist as parameters in the empty input schema, creating confusion about how to invoke the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_contact (likely for specific ID lookup) or list_contacts (likely for unfiltered listing). The description does not clarify prerequisites or search behavior (e.g., partial vs exact matching).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to state whether the search is case-sensitive, what fields are searched (title vs body), or what the tool returns (note IDs, titles, or full content).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only four words. No filler content, though this efficiency comes at the cost of omitting necessary context. Structure is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output schema explanation and provides no compensation for missing annotations. The mismatch between 'by keyword' description and empty input schema leaves critical functional gaps unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. However, the description references 'keyword' which implies a parameter that does not exist in the schema, creating confusion. It does not clarify the empty parameter list or explain how the search is triggered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (search notes) and mechanism (by keyword), but fails to differentiate from sibling 'list_notes'. Additionally, claiming 'by keyword' is confusing given the input schema has zero parameters, leaving ambiguity about how the search term is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_notes' or 'read_note'. No mention of prerequisites, expected inputs, or search scope (titles vs content).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosure burden but fails to state whether hidden files are included, what metadata is returned, if Finder must be running, or whether the operation is read-only. Critical behavioral traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of parameters and output schema, as it leaves critical operational details unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the target directory selection logic and return format. It provides neither, leaving agents without sufficient context to predict invocation results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rubric. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (List files) and domain (Finder directory), but given the tool accepts zero parameters, it critically omits WHICH directory is listed (e.g., current window, home directory, or default path). This ambiguity prevents clear differentiation from sibling `finder_search` and leaves invocation scope undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus `finder_search` (for filtering) or `onedrive_list_files` (for cloud storage). The description purely states functionality without contextual selection 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 but fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, if pagination is supported, what task statuses are included (completed vs. active), or the expected return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words) with no wasted language. However, given the lack of annotations and sibling differentiation, it may be overly terse rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (zero parameters), the description is incomplete as it omits critical scope information (what subset of tasks is returned) and fails to distinguish from similar listing/searching siblings, leaving the agent uncertain about which tool to select.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. With no parameters to describe, the description appropriately does not attempt to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (List) and resource (OmniFocus tasks), but lacks specificity regarding scope (e.g., all tasks, incomplete only, inbox) and fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_omnifocus_tasks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'search_omnifocus_tasks' or 'list_omnifocus_projects', nor any mention of prerequisites or filtering capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 offers minimal detail. It doesn't explain how the 'specific list' is determined without input parameters, whether completed reminders are included, pagination behavior, or the return format. The mention of list filtering without parameter support actually introduces confusion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the verb. While extremely terse given the lack of supporting metadata, it avoids verbosity and each word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations), the description is insufficient. The critical gap is explaining how the tool identifies which 'specific list' to query when no parameters exist. It also omits cross-references to list_reminder_lists which would be necessary for practical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per the evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (List) and resource (reminders), but the phrase 'from a specific list' creates ambiguity since the input schema contains no parameters to specify which list. It also fails to distinguish from siblings like search_omnifocus_tasks or clarify the relationship with list_reminder_lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'from a specific list' implies filtering capability, there's no explanation of how to select the list (given zero parameters) or when to prefer this over other reminder/task listing tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 offers none. It does not specify which folder is queried (Inbox, All, Sent), volume limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at six words with no redundant phrasing. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient communication of necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as return value structure, email field inclusion, or folder scoping. For a tool interacting with an external email service, this level of description is inadequate for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though it could have clarified that the tool uses default mailbox settings due to the lack of filtering options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (List) and resource (emails from Microsoft Outlook), but remains vague about the scope and return format. It fails to differentiate from siblings like `outlook_search_emails` or `list_emails`, leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves full content, headers, or just IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus `outlook_search_emails` (which likely supports filtering) or the generic `list_emails`. There are no stated prerequisites, such as requiring authentication or specific Outlook folder 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 sends email but fails to explain critical behavioral traits: how it operates with zero parameters (does it open a draft window? use conversation context?), whether it triggers immediate sending, or any authentication/permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at three words with no filler. While efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as it front-loads only the action without supporting context that would help an agent understand the zero-parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex operation like sending email, the description is radically incomplete. With no output schema, no annotations, and a mysterious zero-parameter schema that contradicts typical email sending requirements (recipient, subject, body), the description fails to explain how the tool obtains necessary email content or what the execution flow entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Send email') and specifies the platform ('via Outlook'), providing clear verb and resource. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'send_email' or explain when to prefer this over other email-sending alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_email' or 'reply_email'. The mention of Outlook implies platform-specific usage, but explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'To disk' implies filesystem write, but omits overwrite behavior, path handling, file size limits, and error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with no waste. However, extreme brevity may contribute to under-specification given the tool's likely complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critical gap: tool name implies selecting specific attachments, but empty schema and description provide no mechanism for identification. No output schema or annotations to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 params = baseline 4. Description implies no arguments are needed, though this seems functionally questionable for an attachment identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb-resource-destination triplet ('Save email attachment to disk'), but lacks scoping details on which specific attachment or from which email thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus read_email or outlook_read_email, nor does it explain prerequisites for identifying the target attachment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosure burden. While 'send' implies a write operation, the description fails to mention whether this requires user interaction to complete, what happens if no mail account is configured, or whether the operation returns a success status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the suspicious absence of parameters for an email-sending operation, the description may be overly concise by failing to explain how the email content is provided (e.g., via UI or missing schema fields).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool performing a high-complexity external operation (sending email) with no output schema and zero documented parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameter discrepancy, distinguish the email client used, or describe success/failure handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, tools with 0 parameters receive a baseline score of 4 for this dimension, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (compose and send) and resource (email), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'outlook_send_email' or clarify which email client is targeted. Given the macOS-centric sibling tools (finder_list, safari bookmarks), this likely targets Apple Mail, but the description leaves this ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'outlook_send_email' or 'reply_email'. The absence of parameters in the schema suggests this may open a UI compose window rather than sending programmatically, but the description does not clarify this critical behavioral distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior, caching policies, or error conditions. The mention of 'channels' without specifying data structure (nested vs flat) leaves behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only five words. No redundancy or filler content. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary context given the complex sibling relationships and lack of output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations. Fails to explain the relationship between this tool and 'teams_list_channels' regarding channel data, and does not specify the scope of Teams returned (e.g., all accessible, favorited, or recent).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage. Baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists Teams and mentions channels, but creates ambiguity with sibling tool 'teams_list_channels'. It does not clarify whether this returns teams with nested channels, all channels flat, or if 'channels' refers to something else. Lacks scope clarification (all teams vs joined teams only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'teams_list_channels' or 'teams_list_chats'. Does not mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or necessary permissions to list Teams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'preview' suggesting a confirmation step, but fails to disclose critical safety details for a destructive operation: whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, handling of recurring events, or what the preview contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at 5 words. While front-loaded, the brevity is inappropriate for a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, leaving dangerous gaps in understanding rather than achieving efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a destructive tool with empty input schema and no output schema. Lacks explanation of identification mechanism (how to specify which event), return values, error conditions, or safety constraints required for agent confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains 0 parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. Description neither adds nor subtracts parameter information. However, given the empty schema, the description could have explained how the target event is identified (likely through conversational context).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (Delete) and resource (calendar event), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_calendar_event and list_calendar_events. The 'with preview' clause adds specific behavioral context, though it could elaborate on what the preview entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an event must be selected first given the empty parameter schema). No warnings about irreversible actions or conditions for safe 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet fails to specify critical details: the default save location, naming behavior, whether existing files are overwritten, the return value (file path, object, or boolean), or the file format (.xlsx). It minimally signals a write operation through the verb 'Create' but omits operational specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (five words) and front-loaded, but given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to compensate for missing structured metadata.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity given the lack of supporting metadata. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose the return value (presumably a file reference or path) and file system behavior, but it provides only the minimal functional label.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object). Per evaluation guidelines, tools with zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create') and resource ('Excel spreadsheet'), accurately reflecting the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity regarding scope (e.g., blank workbook vs. template) and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling operations like excel_write_cell beyond the implied file-level vs. cell-level distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as excel_write_cell or other file creation tools like word_create. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a filename is required) or conditions 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 full burden but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination, or return format. It does not clarify the scope (all teams vs. current context) despite having no parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is appropriately brief but overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema. It wastes no words but fails to front-load critical context about the zero-parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, no output schema, and the unusual absence of a team_id parameter, the description is incomplete. It must explain how the tool determines which team's channels to list, or if it returns all channels across all teams.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (channels) with context (Teams team). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like teams_list_teams (which lists teams) and teams_read_channel_messages (which reads messages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus teams_list_teams or teams_read_channel_messages. Critically, it fails to explain how to specify which team to query given the zero-parameter schema, leaving a major operational 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 full burden. It does not disclose read-only vs. destructive behavior, pagination limits, time range constraints, or what the return format looks like. Most critically, it fails to explain the zero-parameter behavior—how the tool identifies the target chat without an ID parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is appropriately brief, but given the ambiguity around parameterless operation and lack of output schema, it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. The critical missing context forces the user to guess at operational behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the unusual zero-parameter schema and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain chat selection logic, message volume limits, or return structure—information necessary for an agent to invoke this tool successfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the rubric. The description neither adds nor subtracts from this baseline since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Read) and resource (messages from a Teams chat). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool `teams_read_channel_messages`, which is critical since Teams distinguishes between 'chats' (1:1 or group direct messages) and 'channels' (team conversations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus `teams_read_channel_messages` or the generic `read_messages`. Crucially, given the input schema has zero parameters, the description offers no explanation of how the tool determines which specific chat to read from (e.g., active context, previously selected chat, etc.).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to describe what happens upon invocation (what fields are initialized, return value format, error conditions, or 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the unusual nature of a creation tool accepting zero parameters, additional context would be warranted to explain this constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and zero input parameters, the description should clarify what task gets created (default values? blank task?) and what the return value contains. The absence of this explanation leaves a significant gap given the counterintuitive zero-parameter interface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object). Per the scoring rubric, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('task in OmniFocus'), distinguishing it from sibling 'complete_omnifocus_task' (create vs complete) and from 'create_reminder' (OmniFocus vs Reminders app). However, it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this from other task-creation tools in the broader ecosystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_reminder' or 'complete_omnifocus_task'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify whether checks are read-only or corrective, what output format to expect, or how long execution might take. 'Run diagnostic checks' implies an action but not the consequences or results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single seven-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action verb. However, extreme brevity leaves critical gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining what diagnostics are returned and how to interpret them. It fails to do so, leaving agents uncertain about what information they'll receive after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter documentation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (run diagnostic checks) and target (all connected services), distinguishing it from the many CRUD-focused sibling tools. However, it lacks specificity about what 'connected services' encompasses or what types of diagnostics are performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus attempting operations directly with the service-specific tools. No mention of prerequisites or conditions that would indicate a need for diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. While it mentions 'date range', it does not explain how to specify the range given the empty parameter schema, which calendar(s) are queried, or what the return format/pagination behavior is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, given the ambiguity regarding the calendar system and the mismatch between the 'date range' mention and empty parameter schema, it 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete given the tool's contextual complexity. It lacks explanation of the return values (no output schema exists), does not clarify which calendar source is used, and fails to address the discrepancy between the 'date range' functionality described and the empty input schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to calibration guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description mentions 'date range' implying parameters might be expected, but this does not change the baseline for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists calendar events and specifies the scope is limited to a date range. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'outlook_list_events', leaving ambiguity about which calendar system (Apple Calendar vs. Outlook) is being accessed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'outlook_list_events' or other calendar-related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, default calendar selection, or how to handle multiple calendar accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Mail.app' clarifies the target application, description omits: read-only safety, result limits/pagination, return format, and authentication requirements. The 'optional filters' claim is unsupported by the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb. Efficient length (9 words), though the final clause 'with optional filters' wastes space given it describes non-existent functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking output schema and annotations, a list retrieval tool requires more context: result set limits, sorting behavior, or what email fields are returned. Description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, establishing baseline of 4 per scoring rules. Description mentions 'optional filters' which misleadingly implies parameters exist, but this does not significantly detract from the baseline given the empty schema is self-documenting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb (List) and resource (emails from Mail.app inbox) effectively distinguishes from sibling outlook_list_emails. However, claiming 'optional filters' is confusing given the empty input schema with zero parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like search_emails, read_email, or outlook_list_emails. No mention of prerequisites or constraints despite numerous alternative email tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to mention pagination behavior, whether deleted/shared items are included, what metadata is returned, or any permission requirements. The description only states the basic action without 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at seven words. While efficient and front-loaded with the key action, its brevity contributes to under-specification given the lack of annotations or output schema. No wasted words, but too minimal for the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of input parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return structure or scope limitations (e.g., root directory only, pagination). It provides neither, leaving the agent uncertain about what data structure will be returned or how to navigate large file sets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to elaborate upon in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (files and folders in OneDrive), providing specific action and scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'onedrive_search_files' or clarify if this browses the root directory, a specific path, or operates recursively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify when to prefer this over 'onedrive_search_files' for browsing versus searching, nor when to use 'finder_list' for local files versus OneDrive cloud files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 offers minimal information. It does not address overwrite behavior, file size limits, authentication requirements, error handling scenarios, or whether the operation is atomic—critical details for a file mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's function without redundancy. However, given the complexity of file write operations and the complete lack of schema documentation, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps rather than being appropriately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive file operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to compensate for the missing structured metadata by explaining required inputs, return values, or side effects necessary for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description does not mention parameters, which is consistent with the empty schema, though this raises questions about how the tool receives file content and destination paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the core action ('Write or upload') and target resource ('file to OneDrive'). However, it does not clarify the distinction between 'write' and 'upload' operations or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like onedrive_read_file or onedrive_delete_file, though this is somewhat 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for use (e.g., file path formatting), or exclusion criteria. Given the empty input schema, the description fails to indicate what inputs are expected to perform the write 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to address critical aspects: whether it handles scanned/image-based PDFs (OCR), whether it preserves formatting or returns plain text, page limits, or error handling for encrypted files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format (structured pages vs. raw text?), extraction capabilities, and input sourcing (how the PDF is specified given the empty parameter schema). These omissions leave significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (read text) and resource (PDF file). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like word_read or excel_read by specifying the PDF format, though it could be more explicit about differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like word_read or ppt_read, or when to use finder_search first to locate the PDF. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states that creation occurs. It fails to disclose where the file is saved, what is returned (file path, object, or void), or whether the presentation opens automatically.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words with no redundancy. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is arguably too brief to be maximally useful, though not inefficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical operational details such as the save location, return format, or side effects (e.g., application launch), which are necessary for an agent to utilize the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, though it could have clarified default behaviors (e.g., blank slides) that parameters might normally control.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Create) and resource (PowerPoint presentation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ppt_read, excel_create, and word_create. However, it lacks specificity regarding whether it creates a blank presentation or from a template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as file naming conventions, save locations, or required 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'by keyword' but fails to specify search scope (message body vs. sender), case sensitivity, return format, or result limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The four-word description contains no redundancy and front-loads the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps rather than demonstrating efficient information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, annotations, or parameters, the description must explain return values and behavioral constraints. It fails to specify what data is returned (message objects vs. IDs) or search limitations, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, warranting the baseline score of 4. The description implies keyword-based filtering, though without explicit parameters to document, no additional semantic clarification is possible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (Search) and resource (iMessages), distinguishing it from email or note search siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_messages' or 'list_message_chats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'read_messages' or 'list_message_chats', nor does it mention prerequisites like access permissions or iCloud account requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to mention pagination behavior, scope limitations (recent vs. all chats), required permissions, or what data is returned (chat IDs, participant names, timestamps). It also does not clarify what constitutes a 'chat' in Teams context (1:1, group, or meeting chats).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. However, given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves significant gaps that a slightly longer description could have filled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., chat IDs, titles, participant info) and the nature of Teams 'chats' versus channels. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full contract of this list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to scoring rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (Microsoft Teams chat conversations), and specifies the platform to distinguish from the generic 'list_message_chats' sibling. However, it does not differentiate from 'teams_list_channels' (which lists channels, not direct chats) or 'teams_read_chat_messages' (which reads content within chats).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this versus 'list_message_chats' (likely for SMS/iMessage) or when to prefer 'teams_read_chat_messages' after listing. There are no prerequisites, filtering constraints, or alternative recommendations 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 provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Mark...as complete' implies state mutation, it fails to disclose if this is reversible, if the reminder is archived or deleted, side effects, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient at 5 words with zero redundancy. The single sentence front-loads the core action immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critically incomplete given the empty parameter schema. Fails to explain how the tool identifies which specific reminder to complete (likely requires external context or implicit state not documented here). No output schema or annotations to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per calibration rules, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (Mark...as complete) on a clear resource (reminder). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'complete_omnifocus_task' by specifying 'reminder' versus 'task', though it doesn't clarify they belong to different apps/systems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'complete_omnifocus_task', nor prerequisites (e.g., does it require a specific reminder to be 'selected' or context from a prior tool call?). No alternative workflows 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'Spotlight' implying macOS indexing, but fails to disclose search scope (filename vs content), result format/limits, case sensitivity, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse at four words with zero redundancy. Every word conveys essential information, though the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critically inadequate for a search tool. With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain how to specify search criteria and what gets returned. It provides neither, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object). Per scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. Description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (search) and resource (files) with implementation detail (Spotlight). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling 'finder_list' or clarify scope differences from cloud storage searches like 'onedrive_search_files'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'finder_list' (directory listing vs content search) or versus cloud storage search tools. No mention of prerequisites like Spotlight indexing being enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to state that this is a destructive operation (removes from source), whether it preserves email metadata, or error conditions like invalid destination mailboxes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single six-word sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is maximally efficient and front-loaded with the critical action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero documented parameters (likely a schema error), the description inadequately covers necessary context. It omits safety warnings about data loss, success/failure indicators, and whether the operation is reversible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object), which triggers the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description cannot add parameter semantics where none exist in the schema, though this schema emptiness is itself problematic for a move operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('move') and identifies the target resource ('different mailbox'), clarifying the scope beyond just the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from similar operations like copying or forwarding emails available in 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copying vs. moving), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring the destination mailbox to exist or permissions needed to modify the source location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to state whether the operation overwrites existing files, preserves metadata, handles directories, or requires specific permissions. The mutation nature is implied but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only five words. There is no redundant or filler text; every word directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to specify source and destination paths (critical for a move operation), success indicators, or side effects such as broken sharing links.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 according to the evaluation rubric. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation since there are no parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the core action ('Move or rename') and the target resource ('file in OneDrive'), distinguishing it from sibling operations like delete, read, or write. However, it does not clarify the relationship between moving and renaming or specify path requirements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copying and deleting, or when renaming in-place is preferable to moving. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., file existence checks) and error condition handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to disclose whether the reply is sent immediately, saved as a draft, or requires user confirmation. It also does not address the suspicious absence of parameters (message ID, body content) that such an operation would logically require.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with no redundant words. The information is front-loaded and direct, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that replying to an email typically requires specifying the original message, composition body, and recipients, the description is inadequate. It does not compensate for the empty input schema or explain how the tool identifies the target email or captures reply content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object). Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb-resource combination ('Reply to an existing email') that distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' (new composition) and 'read_email' (viewing). However, it lacks specificity about the mechanism (e.g., whether it creates a draft or sends immediately).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'send_email' or 'outlook_send_email', nor does it address the critical gap of how to specify which email to reply to given the empty input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosure but fails to specify critical behavioral traits: where the file is saved (temp directory, specific folder), whether it opens in the Word application, or what the return value represents (file path, binary content, success boolean).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only four words with zero redundancy. Every word serves a necessary function in identifying the tool's purpose, appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete for a file creation tool. Without an output schema, it should explain the side effects (file persistence location, application launch behavior) and return value to enable proper agent utilization.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Per evaluation rules, tools with zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4. The input schema contains no properties requiring semantic clarification beyond the description's implicit 'create a document' operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb-resource pair ('Create' + 'Word document') that identifies the tool's function. However, it lacks scope specification (e.g., blank document vs. template, local vs. cloud storage) that would elevate it to 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like excel_create or ppt_create, nor does it mention prerequisites such as available storage space or file naming conventions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive operation, but lacks disclosure on file size limits, supported formats (.doc vs .docx), error handling for missing files, or whether output includes formatting metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 5 words. Single sentence is front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundant text given the simplicity of the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critical gap: schema has no parameters, yet description fails to explain how the target document is specified (e.g., via context, file path, or active selection). Without output schema, description should clarify return format but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. Description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (Read) and resource (Word document content). Distinguishes from siblings word_append, word_create, and other document readers like excel_read or pdf_read. However, 'content' is vague—does not clarify if it extracts plain text, formatting, images, or comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pdf_read for PDFs, read_note for Apple Notes). No mention of prerequisites or required context to specify which document to read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Create' implies mutation but lacks disclosure of idempotency, error handling (e.g., duplicate folder names), reversibility, or account scoping. Fails to establish safety profile or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence immediately states purpose with zero redundancy. Appropriate length for a parameter-less tool where the name itself carries most semantic weight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimum viable for a zero-parameter tool, but omits critical context given the ecosystem: doesn't specify which email account receives the folder (despite list_accounts sibling existing) or default account behavior. Output schema absence is acceptable per rules.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters in input schema per context signals. Baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb ('Create') and resource ('email folder/mailbox'), clearly distinguishing from sibling create tools like create_calendar_event or create_note by specifying the email domain. However, it doesn't clarify scope relative to other email operations like move_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as account selection (despite the existence of list_accounts suggesting multi-account support). No exclusions or failure modes 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 the full burden but only specifies the target platform (Apple Notes). It fails to disclose what content the note contains (apparently empty given zero parameters), return values, side effects, or permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient six-word sentence with zero redundancy. Given the tool's simplicity, this length is appropriate and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic operation, it is minimally viable for a creation tool. It omits what the created note contains (empty?), what identifier or confirmation is returned (no output schema exists), and behavioral side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Per the rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create) and resource (a new note in Apple Notes), and sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like read_note, list_notes, and other create_* tools (reminder, calendar, etc.) by specifying the Apple Notes platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes or read_note, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., Apple Notes app requirements) or when not 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify what 'configured' entails, what fields are returned (account IDs, names, types), or whether disabled accounts are included. It only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the tool's function without preamble or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it could improve by indicating what account information is returned (e.g., identifiers, account names) to help the agent use the results in subsequent tool calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or input is required to retrieve the full list of accounts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (configured email and calendar accounts). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_emails and list_calendar_events by focusing on account configuration rather than content, though it doesn't explicitly clarify this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the typical discovery pattern (using this to identify account IDs before querying specific emails or 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 provided, so description carries full burden, yet discloses nothing about behavior. Does not explain what 'available' entails (permissions, visibility), return format (strings vs objects), pagination, or potential rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words. Every word serves a purpose. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimum viable for a zero-parameter tool, but gaps remain. Without an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., 'Returns list of calendar names/IDs') to enable correct downstream use with 'create_calendar_event'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4 since no parameter documentation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb-resource pair ('List available calendars') that distinguishes from sibling 'list_calendar_events' by targeting calendar containers rather than events. However, 'available' is vague (user calendars? subscribed? shared?) and it doesn't specify whether it returns names, IDs, or full objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites. Fails to mention that output is likely needed as input for 'create_calendar_event' or that 'list_calendar_events' should be used when seeking events rather than calendar metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 only offers the basic action. It omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, volume limits, or the structure/format of returned contact data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant or wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, achieving maximum information density for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the basic functionality is stated, the description is incomplete given the lack of output schema and annotations. It fails to specify the scope of returned data (all contacts vs. recent), cardinality, or any filtering limitations that would help the agent understand the tool's coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per scoring guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification since there are no arguments to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (contacts from the address book), providing a specific action. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_contact' (retrieve specific) or 'search_contacts' (query with filters), leaving ambiguity about whether this returns all contacts or a subset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_contacts' or 'get_contact'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers that would help an agent select this over 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 disclosure burden. While it notes 'recent' (implying a time/filter constraint), it fails to specify what 'recent' means (e.g., last 30 days, last 100 conversations), doesn't indicate this is a read-only/safe operation, and doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no waste. It front-loads the action and scope, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where complexity is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, straightforward list operation), the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it should ideally describe what constitutes a 'conversation' object (e.g., participant names, last message date) and define the 'recent' scope to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation given the simple list-all behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('iMessage conversations'), and specifies the domain ('iMessage') which distinguishes it from sibling tool 'teams_list_chats'. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction between 'conversations' (threads) and individual 'messages', which would help differentiate from 'read_messages' and 'search_messages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'read_messages', 'search_messages', or 'teams_list_chats'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring macOS with Messages access) or typical workflow (e.g., use this first to get chat IDs, then read_messages to get content).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 fails to mention what data is returned (titles, IDs, content snippets), pagination behavior, or result ordering/limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only four words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and contains no redundant or wasteful text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While adequate for a zero-parameter tool, the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally disclose what the tool returns (e.g., note titles, IDs, creation dates). It provides the minimum viable context but leaves operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters. According to scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (notes from Apple Notes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `search_notes`, which also retrieves notes but with filtering capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus `search_notes` for filtered results, nor any mention of performance considerations when listing potentially large note collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosure burden. It fails to explain what happens upon invocation (e.g., ticket creation, email notification, confirmation ID), side effects, or required authentication/permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of eight words with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about what data is captured automatically (system info, timestamps) or confirmation behavior, which would help an agent understand the full contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Report') and resource ('bug or issue') with target audience ('development team'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'request_feature' or 'request_integration', which are conceptually similar feedback mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_feature' or 'request_integration', nor does it mention prerequisites or expected information to include in the report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 intent but fails to explain what happens when invoked (e.g., opens a form, sends feedback, creates a ticket), side effects, or success indicators.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information and avoids repetition of the tool name or structured data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context to understand the tool's intent. However, it lacks behavioral details (what the request mechanism entails) that would be necessary for an agent to predict outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per the scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (request) and scope (integration with unsupported app), distinguishing it from the many specific app-integration siblings (e.g., create_omnifocus_task, outlook_send_email) which handle supported apps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance is provided. While 'unsupported app' implicitly contrasts with the sibling tools, there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over existing integrations or what constitutes 'unsupported'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose message limits (how many returned), time range (recent vs all), pagination behavior, or whether this is a destructive vs safe operation. Lacks critical behavioral context for a data retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with zero redundancy. Appropriate length for a simple zero-parameter read operation, front-loaded with the essential action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the basic purpose but leaves significant gaps given no output schema or annotations. Missing: return format (message structure), volume limits, and whether channel context is inferred from session or hardcoded. Adequate but minimal for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters (empty properties object). With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies. Description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('messages from a Teams channel'). Specifies 'channel' which helps distinguish from sibling tool 'teams_read_chat_messages', though it doesn't explicitly clarify the difference between channels vs chats for agents unfamiliar with Teams terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'teams_read_chat_messages' or prerequisites like needing channel IDs from 'teams_list_channels' first. No mention of required permissions or authentication context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a mutation (state change to completed), but lacks details on reversibility, side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens to the task after completion (archived, hidden, deleted, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter, simple-action design, the description meets minimum viability by stating the core function. However, it lacks explanation of how the specific task is targeted without input parameters (e.g., current selection, context) and omits return value information, though no output schema exists to supplement this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Mark...complete' and identifies the specific resource 'OmniFocus task'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_reminder' (different app) and 'create_omnifocus_task' (opposite action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the clear action verb, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like delete, or prerequisites such as needing to identify the task first. It relies on the agent inferring context 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.