Latent Defense MCP Server

Official

by latent-defense

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with consistent prefixes (create_, get_, list_, oracle_) and specific domain targets. Even similar-sounding tools like 'list_attack_paths' vs 'list_branch_attack_paths' are differentiated by scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. The oracle_ prefix is used uniformly for oracle operations, and stats tools use noun_verb but remain consistent among themselves.
Tool Count4/5
85 tools is high but well-justified given the broad domain coverage (mapping, attack paths, threat modeling, ticketing, webhooks, connectors). Some consolidation might be possible (e.g., combining oracle operations), but the count is reasonable for the complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool suite covers CRUD for most entities (connectors, branches, tickets, webhooks, etc.) and includes advanced operations (validation, escalation, previewing). Minor gaps exist, such as missing update operations for inference schedules and webhooks, and no delete for branches or repositories.
Average 3.4/5 across 85 of 85 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether adding a node is permanent, requires a session, or has constraints like unique names. Since no annotations are provided, the description should carry this burden but fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It does not front-load critical details beyond the basic action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about return values, preconditions, or relationships to other tools. For a tool with three required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings, but it mentions none. The tool has three required parameters (name, description, node_type) with no indication of valid values for node_type or expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'node to the threat model', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like oracle_tm_add_edge or oracle_tm_save, which could be confused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oracle_tm_load_template, oracle_tm_add_edge). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list recent' but does not explain how 'recent' is determined (e.g., creation time), whether results are ordered, if pagination is supported, or if the operation is read-only. The lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), which is concise but severely under-specified. It omits essential information about the parameter and behavior, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter's role, the meaning of 'recent', or how the tool fits into the broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for the limit parameter. It does not mention limit at all—no explanation of purpose, default value, or allowed range. The agent has no context to set the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (JEPA inference runs), and the word 'recent' implies a temporal scope. It distinguishes the tool from get_inference_run (single run) and list_inference_schedules (schedules, not runs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_inference_run for details, list_inference_schedules for schedules). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on associated data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and avoids verbosity, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but not sufficiently informative for a 1-parameter destructive tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context about the destructive nature, such as prerequisites, error conditions, or relationship to other connectors, leaving important gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the 'connector_id' parameter; it doesn't explain format, source, or how to obtain the value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('data source connector'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_connector or update_connector.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, consequences, or conditions for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. It only states 're-run' without explaining side effects (e.g., resetting steps, creating new entries). The behavior is under-specified for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks essential information. Conciseness is positive but not at the expense of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and one parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. No mention of prerequisites, return values, or ticket state requirements. Sibling tools provide context but it is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'ticket_id' parameter. No additional meaning, format, or constraints are provided beyond the schema name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('re-run remediation') and the resource ('from a failed ticket'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_remediation_ticket' (creates new) and 'get_ticket' (retrieves info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use for failed tickets but does not specify conditions or exclude others (e.g., successful tickets). Sibling tools like 'get_ticket_steps' or 'update_ticket_status' are not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions required, or side effects. With no annotations provided, this is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it less ideal than a slightly longer description that adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. It omits behavioral notes and parameter clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning about the 'schedule_id' parameter, such as its format or how to obtain valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a JEPA inference schedule', which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_inference_schedule and list_inference_schedules. However, it essentially repeats the tool name without adding contextual detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_mapping_run or other delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not confirm idempotency, permission requirements, error behavior, or any 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise but overly minimal. It includes no structuring (e.g., bullets) and lacks additional context that would justify its brevity. It earns its place but could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete in stating the core functionality. However, it omits details about return structure, error codes, and relationships to sibling tools, which are valuable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (connector_id) with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or how to obtain it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves connector details including status and last poll time, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_connectors (listing) and connector_health (health check). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., connector_health, list_connectors), nor any prerequisites or conditions for 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, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details', omitting that the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is short but lacks substantive information. It could be expanded to include useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not clarify what 'details' includes or any edge cases, making it insufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description does not mention the repo_id parameter or explain its purpose beyond what the schema's title ('Repo Id') implies. No added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('details for an InfraDB repository'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_branch or get_connector by focusing on repository details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_repositories or other get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get details') without mentioning what details are included, whether the operation is read-only, permissions required, or any 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of missing important details; it could be slightly longer to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is too minimal. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description should still clarify what 'details' means and how the ticket is identified. Context from sibling tools suggests it is a read operation, but that is not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the 'ticket_id' parameter beyond its name and type. An agent receives no guidance on how to find or format the ticket ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get remediation ticket details,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tickets (list vs get) and create_remediation_ticket, but lacks explicit differentiation from similar getters like get_ticket_steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List branches' without mentioning pagination, error handling, or what happens if the repo does not exist. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on prerequisites, authentication, or any side effects, making it incomplete for a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'repo_id' parameter. It does not explain what format or type is expected, leaving the agent to rely solely on the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'branches in a repository', making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_branch' or 'list_commits', so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_branch' for a single branch or 'create_branch' for write operations. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether it lists all available tickets. The default parameters (limit=20) are not mentioned, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks critical details to be truly effective. It is neither verbose nor is it structured to highlight key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return structure, filtering capabilities, or how it differs from similar list functions. More context is needed for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters (status, limit). The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters effectively from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List remediation tickets' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (remediation tickets). It is explicit about what the tool does, but does not differentiate from sibling list functions like list_branches or list_connectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticket or ticket_stats, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether edges can be duplicated, if source/target nodes must exist, or any side effects like overwriting. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not use the limited space to provide additional value beyond the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. Missing context such as prerequisites, effects on the graph, and edge type constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no clarification beyond parameter names. While names like 'source' and 'target' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on expected formats, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool adds an edge to a threat model, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like oracle_tm_add_node, though it could provide more context about what an edge represents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oracle_tm_add_node or oracle_tm_clear. The agent gets no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no category is specified. The list of categories is given but without explaining the nature of the list (e.g., whether it is exhaustive or dynamic).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point. However, it lacks structure such as separate sections for usage or examples. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but could be improved with explicit parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of sibling oracle_tm tools, the description does not explain how listing templates fits into the threat modeling workflow (e.g., templates can be loaded with oracle_tm_load_template). The existence of an output schema is noted, but the description adds no workflow context. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter usage. It lists categories but does not explicitly state that the 'category' parameter filters the list by those values. The mapping between the parameter and the category list is implicit, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'available threat model templates'. It lists categories, implying a filtering capability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_tm_load_template which loads a specific template. However, it does not explicitly state that the category parameter filters the list, slightly blurring the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use this tool. There is no contrast with similar tools like oracle_tm_load_template or oracle_tm_match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, and the description only says 'Delete', which implies destruction but does not disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but lacks essential information. It is front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not mention return values (even though output schema exists) or any important constraints. Incomplete for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'webhook_id'. It does not explain what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a triage webhook'), using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_webhook', 'list_webhooks', and 'test_webhook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. Description does not mention that the webhook must exist or that deletion is irreversible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'get' without mentioning if it's read-only, expensive, or any constraints. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of 10 words, efficient and front-loaded. Could add more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and a single required parameter, the minimal description is adequate but lacks any extra context about prerequisites or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter branch_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description adds no extra meaning about its format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the full materialized graph for a branch, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like oracle_graph_info or get_attack_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states ordering (newest first) but omits important behavioral traits like pagination, authentication requirements, or 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence, front-loaded), but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has undocumented parameters and lacks usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for branch_id or limit, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (commits on a branch), and the ordering (newest first), distinguishing it from siblings like diff_commits or list_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as diff_commits. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'text similarity' but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, required session state, or search scope (e.g., current graph vs. all nodes).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 7 words, front-loaded with the action. Efficient but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a similarity search tool, the description omits critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., loaded graph), filtering behavior of 'node_type', and interpretation of 'top_k'. Output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no per-parameter information. While parameter names are somewhat intuitive, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'node_description' or 'node_type' mean in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'search', resource 'nodes', and method 'text similarity using MiniLM embeddings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'oracle_list_nodes' but does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_nodes', which could be confusing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_nodes' or 'oracle_list_nodes'. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the iterative nature and the output format (Mermaid diagrams per iteration with entry candidates, path transitions, convergence). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., state modification), resource usage, authentication needs, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, but the first sentence is somewhat jargony ('energy-scored'). It front-loads the key function but could be clearer. Still, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description omits important context: prerequisites (e.g., a prior match), how parameters influence the output, and deeper explanation of the Mermaid diagram content. It is insufficient for a tool that likely requires integration with other oracle_tm tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters (top_k, max_iterations) at all. The schema has defaults but no descriptions, so the agent has no guidance on how values affect behavior. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an iterative refinement of a threat model match using energy scoring, and specifies the output as Mermaid diagrams per iteration. However, the verb is implicit ('refinement') rather than explicit. It distinguishes from the sibling oracle_tm_match by implying this is a refinement step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling oracle_tm_match, it is implied that this is a follow-up step, but the description does not state that, nor does it provide criteria for when refinement is appropriate or when to stop.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool triggers a poll and fetches data, but does not disclose whether it is destructive, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting previous data).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It is underspecified, not efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter), and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation). However, the description lacks context about error scenarios, expected behavior when connector is unavailable, or typical usage patterns. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the single parameter. The description does not explain what 'connector_id' is or how to obtain it, beyond the minimal schema title. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Trigger an immediate poll') and the resource ('a connector'), with the parenthetical clarifying the purpose ('fetch latest data from the source'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_connector, get_connector, or test_connector.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking if a connector is already polling or when to use test_connector instead. Prerequisites or exclusions are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, search scope, pagination, or error handling. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more helpful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has two required parameters and no annotations, and the description fails to mention search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, exact match vs fuzzy) or 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds only that 'query' is a text query. It does not specify format, allowed characters, or max length for either parameter. The description adds marginal semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search), resource (nodes), and context (in a repository by text query). It distinguishes 'search_nodes' from siblings like 'oracle_search_nodes' by implying it's a general search, but doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oracle_search_nodes). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., if it updates path status), authentication needs, or whether it actually creates a ticket. The brief description leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters). The brevity is acceptable but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description could mention what is returned (e.g., ticket ID). It also fails to explain the relationship to validated_path or the ticketing system. The tool has low complexity but the description still leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, path_id, has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no context about what it is, where to obtain it, or its format. The agent is left without any guidance on how to populate this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (escalate) and resource (validated attack path) and destination (ticketing system). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_remediation_ticket by specifying it operates on a validated path, not creating a ticket from scratch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_remediation_ticket). No mention of prerequisites like path needing to be validated 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, permissions, or side effects. The description only states what is returned, not how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks context on required inputs, error conditions, or usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters or their meaning. The schema provides only titles and types, so the description adds no value beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'branch details', and mentions specific contents: 'head commit and graph stats'. This distinguishes it from list operations like list_branches, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_branches for listing, get_repository for repo details). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, permissions required, or whether saving overwrites existing templates. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear header sentence and structured Args list. Each parameter description is brief but informative. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description omits prerequisites (e.g., having a loaded threat model) and return behavior. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a stateful operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful details beyond the schema: name format (kebab-case), category enum values (identity, network, data, supply_chain, cloud_services), and source_template as an optional seed. Schema coverage was 0%, so the description fully compensates by specifying constraints and allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Save the current threat model as a reusable template,' clearly specifying the action (save) and resource (current threat model). It distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_tm_load_template by the verb. However, it could clarify what 'current threat model' means in context, e.g., the session or branch, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as oracle_tm_list_templates or oracle_tm_load_template. The description lacks any context for selecting this operation over others, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as persistence, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to provide safety or effect details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise and to the point. However, it might be too brief at the expense of clarity. Could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by stating the effect (e.g., the provider is permanently removed) and mentioning the output schema content (which exists but is not described).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the parameter beyond its name. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what the 'provider' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name, or other identifier). Currently, the agent must guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Remove) and the resource (ticketing provider). It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_ticket_provider (add/update) and get_ticket_provider (retrieve). However, it does not clarify whether removal is permanent or if it has side effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. Does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_active_ticket_provider or configure_ticket_provider. Lacks prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 exist to declare safety or side effects. The description only mentions 'recent' and the fields returned, omitting information on ordering, pagination, time window, or any potential performance considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise but could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description provides minimal context. It lists output fields but lacks behavioral details like sort order or pagination limits. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (limit, default 20) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the limit parameter, relying solely on the schema for definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent mapping runs and specifies the attributes included: status, trigger type, and graph stats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mapping_run and get_mapping_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mapping_run. The term 'recent' implies some temporal filtering but no explicit when/when-not context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as what 'recent' means, ordering, pagination behavior, or whether it is read-only. The brief statement 'List recent trigger events' is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is excessively minimal, leaving out important details like parameter usage and behavioral context. It earns its place but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which may explain return values), the description omits crucial context such as the meaning of 'recent', how the limit parameter affects results, and any filtering capabilities. For a list tool with one parameter and no annotations, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain the parameter's role or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent trigger events and specifies the event types (scans, webhooks). It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'trigger events', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trigger_event (single event) or list_webhooks (specific type).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a broad overview of recent events but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like list_webhooks or list_scan_schedules. There are no exclusions or alternatives 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that loading a template replaces the current threat model, implying a destructive action. However, it does not explain whether unsaved changes are lost, if confirmation is required, or what happens to the previous model. The replacement is mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that communicate the core function and side effect. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and effect. However, it lacks context about error conditions, case sensitivity of names, whether a session must exist, and what the return value indicates. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value details, but the overall completeness is adequate, not robust.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage. The only hint in the description is 'by name', which provides minimal guidance. The agent is not told what constitutes a valid name, where to find template names (e.g., from oracle_tm_list_templates), or any format constraints. This under-disclosure forces reliance on context or trial and error.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Load' and the resource 'threat model template', with the outcome 'Replaces the current threat model'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like oracle_tm_clear or oracle_load_branch, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oracle_tm_clear for resetting, oracle_tm_save for persisting). The agent is given no context about prerequisites, such as needing an active session or avoiding data loss.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'trigger' but does not disclose whether the run is asynchronous, how long it takes, or what side effects occur. No mention of permissions, cost, or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could include more critical information without becoming verbose, so borderline 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (triggering an inference run) and the presence of an output schema, the description omits crucial details like return value, async behavior, and usage context. It is not complete enough for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description mentions 'on a branch' but does not clarify what branch_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, existence). The parameter lacks meaningful explanation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a JEPA inference run on a branch to discover attack paths. It uses a specific verb ('Trigger'), identifies the resource ('JEPA inference run'), and describes the outcome ('discover attack paths'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_inference_runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_inference_schedule or list_inference_runs. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, 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, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overriding a currently running scan), required permissions, or any limits on how often it can be triggered. This is inadequate for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence, but it sacrifices informational value for brevity. While concise, it could include more context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the need to obtain the schedule ID or what happens after triggering.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action but misses context like how the schedule ID relates to other tools (e.g., list_scan_schedules) or what the output contains. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the sole parameter 'schedule_id'. It does not explain what constitutes a valid ID, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. The schema only provides a title, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Manually trigger') and the resource ('a scan schedule'), directly aligning with the tool name. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'trigger_scan' by specifying it operates on schedules rather than generic scans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trigger_scan', 'list_scan_schedules'). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the schedule ID from another tool, nor any exclusions for 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, the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get status and details', implying a read operation but not explicitly declaring it non-destructive or indicating any behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, idempotency). The minimal description does not sufficiently inform the agent of expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity (1 required parameter, output schema present). The description adequately states the high-level output ('status and details'), but lacks specifics (e.g., what status fields are returned). Given the output schema exists, this is minimally sufficient but not complete enough to guide parameter usage or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The tool description adds no semantic context for 'run_id', such as its format or source. The schema's title 'Run Id' is basic, and the description fails to enhance understanding beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves status and details of a mapping run, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mapping run'). Sibling tools like 'create_mapping_run', 'cancel_mapping_run', and 'list_mapping_runs' show that this tool is distinct for fetching a single run's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_mapping_runs' or 'get_inference_run'. The description does not mention context for usage or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('Get details') but omits any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read tool, the risk is low, but the lack of informativeness leaves uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 9 words. Every word is necessary and focused, with no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. It states the core action but lacks context on what 'details' entails or how it fits with sibling tools. Given the output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure, but the description could still provide more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'event_id' beyond its name. The agent receives no format, example, or guidance on how to obtain the ID, making parameter usage reliant on external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'trigger event', with 'details' indicating the depth. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trigger_events (which lists) and other getters for different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_trigger_events). The description implies retrieval of a single event but does not explicitly state the context or exclude other 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 provided; description only says 'list' and lists status values. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond default semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and optional filters. Status list is efficiently formatted. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 4 optional parameters and no required ones; output schema exists (not shown). Description covers purpose and two filters but omits pagination parameters. Moderately complete but missing key usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning for 'status' (lists valid values) and 'min_risk_score' (filter), but ignores 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. Incomplete coverage of schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (attack paths) with optional filters. The sibling tools include get_attack_path and list_branch_attack_paths, implying broader scope, but no explicit differentiation 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for filtered listing but does not specify when to use alternatives like get_attack_path for a single path or list_branch_attack_paths for branch-specific queries. No when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions counts by categories, implying read-only aggregation, but lacks details on performance, auth requirements, scope (all repositories vs filtered), or pagination. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the output groupings (status, severity, repository) which implicitly clarifies the role of the 'repository_id' parameter (filtering by repository). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, but does not explicitly describe the parameter format or behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets triage statistics with groupings by status, severity, and repository. The verb 'Get' and resource 'triage statistics' are specific, and the groupings differentiate it from generic stats tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling stats tools like 'ticket_stats' or 'infra_stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With sibling tools for different statistics types, explicit usage guidelines would help the agent decide.
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?
Discloses the pipeline stages, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or failure modes. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is brief but lacks important details about output, errors, and usage context. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'path_id' parameter beyond its name. No format, constraints, or examples are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Dispatch an attack path for sandbox validation' with a pipeline (Parser → Exploit → Grader), which distinguishes it from siblings like escalate_path or update_path_status. However, it could be more explicit about what 'dispatch' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like escalate_path or update_path_status. Missing prerequisites or context for invoking validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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; description only states the tool returns steps/progress but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words; front-loaded information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but could clarify 'per-iteration' and what constitutes a step.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'ticket_id' is not elaborated beyond its schema definition. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain expected format or source but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'per-iteration remediation steps/progress for a ticket', distinguishing it from siblings like get_ticket which likely returns ticket details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_ticket vs get_ticket_steps). No mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool ingests a detection (a creation operation) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. The description is minimal in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient with a clear first sentence and a structured parameter list. No redundant content, but the parameter list could be more concise (e.g., inline descriptions). Overall well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (4 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter definitions adequately but lacks context on behavior such as duplicate handling, validation rules, or post-ingestion effects. It is complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for nuanced understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by providing examples for 'source' and listing allowed values for 'severity'. However, other parameters like 'affected_resource_type' and 'affected_resource_id' are only named, lacking additional semantics. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool ingests a security detection from an external tool, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ingestion, while siblings like 'create_remediation_ticket' or 'run_scan_schedule' have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions filter by type, but omits pagination, sorting, or result format. Minimal disclosure of what 'browse' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, but trade-off with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity, missing behavioral details (pagination, ordering) and no annotation support. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema coverage; description only mentions 'optionally filtered by type' matching node_type, but no detail on limit parameter or accepted values. Adds little beyond schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'browse' and resource 'nodes in the loaded graph' with optional filtering. Differentiates from sibling tools like oracle_get_node (single node) and oracle_search_nodes (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for listing nodes with optional filter, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like oracle_search_nodes or oracle_get_node. No when-not or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output format (Mermaid diagram with specific scores) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any auth or rate limit context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise and to the point, though it could include a brief note on the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not provided), the description gives a good overview of the return value. It explains the components of the diagram (node matches, BFS paths, implicit edges). However, it lacks context about the parameter and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (top_k) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what top_k controls, leaving the agent guessing. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool matches a threat model against infrastructure graph, distinguishing it from other oracle_tm_* tools (which add nodes/edges, load templates, etc.). It specifies the output format (Mermaid diagram with cosine scores, energy scores, implicit edges).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oracle_tm_match_refine. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a threat model loaded) 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a state-changing operation but does not discuss side effects, error conditions, permissions, or reversibility. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise: one-line purpose followed by argument docs. Front-loaded and no fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are less critical, but behavioral gaps remain. Adequate for a simple update, but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds some meaning: path_id as Attack path ID, status as Target status with examples (acknowledged, closed, etc.), reason as optional. However, it does not specify exact allowed values for status, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool name and description clearly state it updates an attack path's triage status. The description uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'attack path's triage status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like escalate_path and get_attack_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when to use this over escalate_path or update_ticket_status, nor provides any context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool cancels a 'running' mapping run, which implies a constraint, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what happens after cancellation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is perhaps too brief, missing supporting details. However, it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core function but lacks detail on prerequisites, side effects, or error states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'run_id' parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a running mapping run'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mapping_run or get_mapping_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a mapping run is running and needs to be cancelled, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'status and results' but lacks detail on what constitutes results (e.g., final vs. intermediate), error states, or whether the tool can be called multiple times. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. However, it is overly terse and could benefit from slight expansion to cover key points without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The tool has one required parameter and is read-only. The description is minimally adequate but omits context like whether results are immediate or require polling, and any special conditions for status values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'run_id' with no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter's format, constraints, or typical values (e.g., where to find the ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves both status and results of an inference run. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'run_inference' (creates a run) and 'list_inference_runs' (lists runs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking a specific run's outcome but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives like 'list_inference_runs' for overviews or 'run_inference' for new runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 present, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions 'best semantic match with full details' but does not disclose read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if no match found), or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and no redundancy. However, could be structured to include usage guidance or behavioral notes without extra length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists (not shown) which likely explains return values. For a simple lookup tool, description covers core purpose but lacks error scenarios, usage context, and integration with sibling tools. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'query' with no schema description (0% coverage). Description adds that the query is a 'description' for semantic search but lacks details on expected format, length, or examples. Does not compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Look up a node by description' with 'Finds the best semantic match with full details', specifying verb (look up), resource (node), and method (semantic match). Distinguishes from siblings like oracle_search_nodes (likely returns list) and oracle_list_nodes (lists all).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for finding a single node via semantic match, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like oracle_search_nodes or oracle_list_nodes. No when-not or prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a state mutation (switching) but does not mention side effects (e.g., deactivating previous provider), required permissions, or any confirmation steps. This lack of detail means an agent may not understand the full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core action. No redundant words or phrases. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not address what happens after switching (e.g., return value, error cases) or any side effects. While the prerequisite of an already-configured provider is mentioned, an agent may need more context to use it correctly without errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the 'provider' parameter. It adds that the provider must be 'already-configured', which is helpful, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., name vs ID), acceptable values, or how to obtain valid options. Without this, the agent may pass an invalid or unrecognized value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Switch' and the resource 'active ticketing provider'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_ticket_provider (which sets up) and remove_ticket_provider (which removes) by specifying the action changes which configured provider is active. The phrase 'to an already-configured provider' implies a prerequisite, adding precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (after providers have been configured) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It could contrast with configure_ticket_provider (setup) or remove_ticket_provider (deletion), but no such guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states 'clear' without explaining irreversibility, side effects, or confirmation, leaving ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise, but could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Presence of output schema partially compensates, but for a destructive action, more info on behavior and side effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema is empty), so description cannot add meaning beyond schema; baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Clear' with specific resource 'current threat model', distinct from sibling tools like oracle_tm_save and oracle_tm_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or contextual hints 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, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'sync' indicating a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting local status), authorization needs, or rate limits. The lack of annotation context and minimal behavioral description is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action—efficient and free of fluff. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists but not used in description), the description provides the essential purpose. However, missing parameter semantics and behavioral context leave it marginally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter ticket_id. The description adds no information about the parameter beyond its existence, failing to explain what the ticket ID refers to or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: syncing a ticket's status from its upstream provider. It uses a strong verb 'Force' and identifies the resource 'ticket's status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket (read), update_ticket_status (update), and retry_ticket (retry).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a one-off sync is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions, prerequisites, or context for 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (sending a test event) and outcome (delivery result with status codes), but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it actually triggers a real HTTP request, permissions needed, or if it modifies webhook state).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words, highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, return values need not be in description. However, the description lacks parameter explanation and fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., webhook must be registered). The tool's completeness is adequate but has gaps for a test tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the 'webhook_id' parameter beyond its name. No format, source, or context is provided, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'send', the resource 'synthetic test event to a webhook', and the outcome 'return the delivery result with per-attempt status codes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_webhook, delete_webhook, and webhook_deliveries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for testing webhook functionality but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like webhook_deliveries. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes parameters and lacks information about return values, side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions. It does not go beyond stating the action 'create'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured with an 'Args:' block. However, some parameter descriptions like 'Schedule name' for 'name' are somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. It could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains all parameters but lacks usage context (e.g., when to use, side effects, or how the schedule interacts with other entities). A bit more context on scheduling behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: 'name' (schedule name), 'cron' (with an example), 'branch_labels' (JSON array, ignored if all_branches true), and 'all_branches' (run on all branches). This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a recurring JEPA inference schedule', identifying the specific verb ('create') and resource ('recurring JEPA inference schedule'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'run_inference' (one-time) and 'list_inference_schedules' (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, 'run_inference' performs a one-time inference, and 'list_inference_schedules' lists existing schedules, but the description doesn't mention these distinctions or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or what happens if the path_id is invalid. For a retrieval tool, it is likely idempotent, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema (not shown), and the description covering core elements, it is nearly complete. However, it could mention that the path_id must come from a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'path_id' parameter beyond its name. It does not clarify how to obtain a valid path_id or provide any additional context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get full details'), the resource ('attack path'), and specifies contents ('steps, MITRE mappings, and risk score'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_attack_paths' which lists paths, while this gets details of a single path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need detailed information about a specific path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_attack_paths' or 'validate_path'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it gets status, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly disclose lack of side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and key resource. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (handling return values implicitly), the description adds value by hinting at output structure (step counts, progress). Lacks error context or prerequisites, but adequate for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description implies 'run_id' identifies the validation run but provides no format or details. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (get), resource (validation run status), and specifics (step counts, progress). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'validate_path' which creates/triggers validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied (retrieve status after starting a validation run), but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. While listing is likely read-only, this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of four words with no wasted information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on scope (e.g., user-specific vs global) and does not fully replace missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by implying no filtering ('all'), which is the only semantic needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all InfraDB repositories' uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'repositories', clearly stating the action and scope. The tool name matches, and despite many sibling list tools, the resource is uniquely identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_repository for a single repo). The description only states what it does, without any context on prerequisites or filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list all scan schedules' without mentioning pagination, filtering, or whether schedules include disabled ones. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not explain ordering, default behavior, or what fields the output contains beyond being a list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'scan schedules', with a parenthetical clarifying what scan schedules are (cron-based recurring mapping runs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mapping_runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_mapping_runs, list_inference_schedules). The description does not provide context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It tells what must happen before (prerequisite) but does not disclose behavioral traits: whether the submission is destructive, creates records, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the action front-loaded. No wasted words, and it includes a key prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a submission tool. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., what submitting does, how it affects the threat model), nor does it cover return values (though output schema exists, it's not visible). More context is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is 'description' (optional). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which has no description field. At 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should explain the purpose or constraints of the parameter, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit attack paths') and the resource ('from the current threat model's matched nodes'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_submit_attack_path (single path) and oracle_tm_match (matching).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires tm_match or tm_match_refine to have been run first'). This gives clear context for when to use, but does not mention when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling names imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action without side effects, permissions, idempotency, or transition rules. Status values are listed but not contextualized.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one line purpose and bulleted parameter list. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter update tool, the description is adequate but could include transition constraints or output expectations. The presence of an output schema is noted but not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds the list of allowed status values, which is crucial and not present in the schema. However, 'ticket_id' only gets 'Ticket ID' with no extra detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a ticket's status,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinctly identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like 'retry_ticket' or 'get_ticket'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_remediation_ticket' for new tickets). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description describes the tool as listing raw JEPA output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, pagination, rate limits, or side effects beyond the implied read nature. For a list operation, it is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description covers purpose but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. Output schema exists (though not visible), so return values are not required. However, given the missing behavioral context and parameter semantics, completeness is only adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (branch_id has no description in schema). The description mentions 'branch' but does not clarify what branch_id is (e.g., ID or name) or provide format constraints. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists attack paths on a branch, with specific context (pre-triage, raw JEPA output). It distinguishes from siblings like list_attack_paths (no branch filter) and get_attack_path (single path).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for raw, pre-triage data on a branch but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., list_attack_paths or get_attack_path). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits but only states the registration action. It does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, persistence, or side effects beyond the registration itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence stating purpose followed by a clear bullet-like parameter list. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (providing return format), the description covers the 5 parameters and 2 required ones with examples and defaults. It is nearly complete, though it omits potential constraints like uniqueness of url or event types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., url, events, template, secret, headers) with brief role and example. However, some parameters like headers lack detail on format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool registers a webhook for attack path event notifications, using the specific verb 'register' and resource 'webhook', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_webhook, test_webhook, and list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_webhook or list_webhooks. The description only explains the purpose without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists parameters without describing side effects, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., duplicate branch name), or whether changes are reversible. For a write operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one title line and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic use but lacks information about return values (despite having an output schema), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains repo_id as 'Repository ID', name as 'Branch name', and source_branch_id as 'Branch to fork from' with default behavior. This significantly aids parameter understanding beyond the bare schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new branch in a repository'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_branches or get_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the basic use case but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_branch (no alternative mentioned) or prerequisites. It lacks explicit when-not or context for selecting among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, permissions required, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context but could be more specific about the complete set of stats returned and the output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds meaningful context by listing example stats (repo count, total nodes/edges, storage), which goes beyond the schema. Baseline score is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves InfraDB statistics and lists specific examples like repo count, total nodes/edges, and storage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticket_stats or triage_stats, which target different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting InfraDB stats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses non-destructive behavior ('without persisting artifacts') and return type ('record count or error details'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or potential errors beyond the mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every phrase adds value: action, resource, key constraint, and return type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks usage guidance but covers purpose, key behavioral constraint, and return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One parameter (connector_id) with 0% schema description coverage. Description does not mention or explain the parameter, leaving agents to infer its meaning from context. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation, which is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'test' and resource 'connector's connection', and differentiates from siblings by noting 'without persisting artifacts', which distinguishes it from create_connector and possibly connector_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like connector_health or get_connector. Usage is implied by the non-persisting nature, but no when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns aggregate counts, but does not mention if the call is read-only, performance implications, data freshness, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context and does not mention the safety profile. It is minimally adequate but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description adds no input meaning beyond the schema, which is expected. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves aggregate ticket statistics, specifying the grouping dimensions (status, provider, outcome). The verb 'Get' and resource 'ticket statistics' are specific, and the tool is well-distinguished from siblings like 'get_ticket' or 'list_tickets'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is self-evident, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar stats tools like 'triage_stats', 'trigger_stats', or 'infra_stats'. The description does not mention alternatives or exclude scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action 'trigger' but does not describe whether the scan runs synchronously/asynchronously, if it is destructive, or what happens upon trigger. Minimal behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single action sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters with brief explanations. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics but omits behavioral context (e.g., async, return values, rate limits). An output schema exists, so return value details are not expected, but other completeness aspects are lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful context for each parameter (e.g., 'What to scan and why' for description, 'JSON array of {"provider", "account_id", "regions"} objects' for cloud_accounts). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Trigger a manual infrastructure mapping scan'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_scan_schedule or list_scan_schedules by emphasizing the 'manual' trigger.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies on-demand usage through the word 'manual', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. No guidance on 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only retrieval operation but lacks explicit behavioral details such as permissions required, side effects, or any caveats. Given no annotations, the description provides minimal but sufficient transparency for a simple stats tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists three specific outputs (total artifacts, connector health, last poll times), which aligns with the expected return of a stats tool. With an output schema available, this description is adequate but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but it does clarify the output content, which indirectly aids understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ingestion stats', listing three concrete components (total artifacts, connector health, last poll times) that distinguish it from sibling stats tools like connector_health or trigger_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely declarative and does not mention context, prerequisites, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('list') without clarifying that it is read-only, idempotent, or describing any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output content. No unnecessary words or repetition. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately states what will be returned. It could mention that the list is exhaustive or any ordering, but given the output schema presumably provides structure, this is sufficient. Minor omission of pagination details, but not necessary for a list of likely manageable size.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly focuses on the output (types and config fields). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'connector types', and adds detail about including required configuration fields. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_connectors' (which likely lists connector instances) and 'create_connector' (which would require knowing types). Purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage context (to discover available types and their config fields before creating a connector) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_connector' or 'list_connectors'. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, performance implications, or side effects. For a list tool, more context is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and no parameters, the description is largely adequate. However, it could briefly define 'inference schedules' for added context, though this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning but correctly implies no input is needed, meeting the baseline for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all JEPA inference schedules' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (inference schedules), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_inference_schedule' and 'list_inference_runs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as filtering or prerequisites. It is a straightforward list operation, but lacks explicit usage 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?
No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses that the tool returns agents spawned by a run, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or behavior for invalid run_ids. For a read-like operation, this is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and context of a simple list tool with one required parameter, leaving little ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description implicitly defines run_id as the mapping run's ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description adds context. However, no format or constraints are given, so value is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'agents spawned by a mapping run', with examples of agent types (planner, modality agents). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_mapping_runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a mapping run to view spawned agents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or provide exclusions.
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?
Discloses that the path is 'energy-scored and forwarded to triage' but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides minimal behavioral context beyond immediate outcome.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an Args section with clear examples. No redundant information; the purpose and parameter format are front-loaded efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the input semantics and post-submission behavior adequately. Missing minor details about error handling or what 'energy-scored' entails, but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: for 'nodes', it explains the delimiter and provides an example; for 'description', it states it's optional. However, it doesn't specify constraints like string length or allowed characters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submit a discovered attack path') and specifies the exact format (chain of node descriptions separated by ' -> '). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'oracle_submit_matched_path' by emphasizing 'discovered' and the specific delimited format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'oracle_submit_matched_path', 'validate_path', or 'escalate_path'. Lacks context about prerequisites, typical use case, or situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclose behavior. It only states the tool views the model, but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects) or performance characteristics. This leaves the agent with limited behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. Every word is necessary and no unnecessary information is present. It is highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple view tool. It covers the essential action and object. Subtracting one point for not explicitly stating that the output conforms to the schema, though the agent can infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional semantic information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool views the current threat model, specifying it includes nodes and edges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle_tm_add_node or oracle_tm_clear, which modify the model.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing the current state, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other read tools like get_graph or oracle_graph_info. No when-not conditions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not state this explicitly, nor does it mention authorization, side effects, or any performance characteristics. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 8 words, front-loading the verb and resource, followed by specific details in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions three key metric categories. An output schema exists, so the return format is covered, but the description could list additional fields for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (active runs, rate limiting, failures). Without parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trigger service stats'), with concrete metrics in parentheses ('active runs, rate limiting, failures'). This distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like 'ticket_stats' or 'infra_stats' which specialize in different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling stats tools). The description implies usage when trigger service metrics are needed, but lacks when-not conditions or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer 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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns rendered output or error, implying a safe read operation, but lacks details on authorization, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus argument docstring, front-loading the purpose and efficiently detailing parameters. No superfluous content; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (so return format is documented), the description provides sufficient context: validates a template against a synthetic event, returns output or error. Parameter explanations are complete. Could mention error types or edge cases, but overall complete for a simple validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: template as 'Jinja2 template string' and sample_event_type as 'Event type for the sample data (default new_path)'. This adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a Jinja2 webhook template against a synthetic event, returning rendered output or a parse error. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like test_webhook by focusing on template validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., test_webhook for actual webhook testing), nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description is purely operational.
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 reveals that the output shows added/removed/modified nodes and edges, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance implications, side effects, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the output shows (added/removed/modified nodes and edges), which is sufficient for a diff tool. Minor gaps about error conditions are not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what commit_a_id and commit_b_id represent beyond being two commits. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to describe parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool diffs two commits and shows added/removed/modified nodes and edges. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits or get_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to compare two commits. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or when not to use it, missing a clear exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. It only states 'check whether the graph has finished loading' without disclosing polling behavior, side effects, or what constitutes success/failure. The tool likely has a destructive or state-changing aspect, but the description gives no safety info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and condition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It provides the trigger condition but does not explain expected output values or polling behavior. For a tool that is part of a multi-step process, more contextual hints would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed. Baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if graph loading is complete after oracle_load_branch returns 'encoding_started'. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('graph loading'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing the specific predecessor tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions the condition for use: after oracle_load_branch returns 'encoding_started'. This provides clear context, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
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, the description carries the burden. It discloses that connection_config is 'merged, not replaced' and that enabled can be left empty to keep the current state. However, it does not mention authorization needs, error handling, or side effects like whether the update is atomic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-style list of arguments. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and parameters well. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it lacks mention of preconditions (e.g., connector must exist) and error conditions, which would make it more complete for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so clearly: connector_id, connection_config (JSON, merged), poll_config (JSON), enabled (true/false or leave empty). This adds significant value over the schema's bare titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Update a connector's configuration,' clearly indicating the verb (update) and resource (connector). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_connector, delete_connector, and poll_connector, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the connector must exist before updating, or that create_connector should be used for new connectors. The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, idempotency, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with five lines including a blank line. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool's complexity is low, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. Some information about ordering or error cases could be included but is not critical for a simple history retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: 'webhook_id: Webhook ID.', 'limit: Max records to return (default 20).', 'status: Filter by "success" or "failed". Leave empty for all.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('recent delivery history for a webhook'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_webhooks or test_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description correctly implies a read-only operation ('list'), but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any other behavioral context. The absence of annotations is compensated by the simplicity of the tool, but a note about safety would improve clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it very concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the action and scope. However, it could mention the return type (e.g., 'returns an array of webhooks') but this is captured by the output schema, so not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all registered triage webhooks' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('registered triage webhooks'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_webhook', 'delete_webhook', and 'test_webhook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the action is straightforward and the context of listing is clear. No exclusions or competing tools for listing are mentioned, but the lack of guidance is acceptable for a simple list operation.
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?
The description states it returns counts, distribution, and edge types, but does not disclose preconditions (e.g., graph must be loaded) or error behavior. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, which is partially met but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the core action 'Get node/edge counts, type distribution'. No unnecessary text; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameter-less tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information. However, it could mention preconditions like requiring a loaded graph. Overall, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the schema covers 100%. Description adds no param info, but baseline for zero-param tools is 4, as there is no need for additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies it retrieves node and edge counts, type distribution, and available edge types, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_get_node (specific node) and oracle_list_nodes (listing nodes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oracle_list_nodes or oracle_search_nodes. The description implies it is for aggregate statistics, but does not state exclusion criteria or provide comparative advice.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'destroy' (destructive) and 'start fresh' (state change), but it does not elaborate on what exactly is destroyed (e.g., session state, cached data) or whether the action is reversible. More detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word is necessary, and it is highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states the action and the consequence for the next tool call. However, it could be more precise about what 'fresh' entails (e.g., re-initialization). It is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Destroy the current oracle session and start fresh on the next tool call.' It uses a specific verb ('destroy') and resource ('oracle session'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling oracle_* tools by uniquely performing a reset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when a fresh session is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., oracle_load_branch, oracle_tm_clear) that might serve similar purposes. No exclusions or comparison to other tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes sorting and returned fields (circuit breaker state, consecutive failures) but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'health summary' beyond those fields. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, sorting, and key fields. Complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0-param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'health summary across all connectors', and provides distinct details: sorted unhealthy-first, shows circuit breaker state and consecutive failures. This differentiates it from siblings like list_connectors and test_connector.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when overall connector health is needed, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor when-not-to-use. Among many sibling tools, lacks guidance on choosing this over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a connector but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it triggers ingestion, required permissions, or account limits). This omission is significant for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-line purpose followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains all parameters, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are partially offset by the sibling tools' existence. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles and types (0% description coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., JSON object), examples for connector_type, and optionality. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a data source connector for automated artifact ingestion.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('data source connector'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_connector_types and update_connector.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using list_connector_types to see available connector types, providing a helpful usage hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_connector or delete_connector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature (returns immediately), the encoding delay for large graphs, and the prerequisite ordering. It does not cover potential side effects or error cases, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short paragraphs to convey purpose, prerequisites, performance characteristics, and companion tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, async loading), the description covers the essential steps: it must be called before exploration, it returns immediately, and how to monitor completion. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. Minor gaps include missing explanation of where to obtain branch_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the branch_id parameter beyond its name, leaving the agent to infer its meaning (likely from sibling tools like list_branches). This is a significant gap for a single required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (load an InfraDB branch graph) and the target (oracle session), and explicitly specifies that it must be called before any graph exploration or threat-model matching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle_load_status and oracle_graph_info, which serve related but distinct purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (before exploration or threat-model matching) and mentions the asynchronous behavior for large graphs, including expected encoding time and how to check completion via oracle_graph_info. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., if already loaded), but the current guidance is effective.
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, the description discloses key behaviors: provider-agnostic, secret handling via credential broker, and set_active default. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., upsert behavior, deactivation of other providers) or auth requirements beyond secrets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a concise summary followed by details and args list. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (multiple providers, secrets handling) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects for agent invocation. It could mention persistence or impact on tickets for completeness, but it is generally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning to all 4 parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). It explains provider options, config as non-secret JSON, secret_keys mapping to credential keys, and set_active's effect, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (register or update) and resource (ticketing provider configuration), and lists supported providers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket_provider or remove_ticket_provider.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool (register or update), along with critical guidelines about handling secrets out-of-band and the set_active default. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the sibling tools cover other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns active and configured providers along with verification state, indicating a read operation. No side effects or behavioral traits are missing for this simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the action and result. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No additional context is needed for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional meaning is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the active ticketing provider and all configured providers with verification state. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'ticketing provider' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_ticket_provider or remove_ticket_provider.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for reading current provider configuration, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like set_active_ticket_provider or test_ticket_provider. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only says 'list', a read operation, with no additional traits (e.g., pagination, scope). Simple tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and output schema present, description is fully adequate. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters (0), so baseline 4. Description adds nothing beyond schema, but schema covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'configured data source connectors', clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_connector (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use: to list all connectors. Implicitly excludes singular retrieval, but no explicit when-not or alternatives.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains bypassing map-trigger but does not describe side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is long-running. Lacks detail on what happens post-creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one summary line, one usage guideline, and a cleanly formatted argument list. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context. Comparison with trigger_scan is sufficient; other siblings are distinct. Could include a note about prerequisites or that it's an advanced operation, but mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but the docstring adds semantic value for most parameters (e.g., 'JSON array of repository URL strings'). Describes format and purpose, though some parameters like credentials_profile could use more detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a mapping run directly on the mapper, bypassing map-trigger, distinguishing it from trigger_scan mentioned explicitly. Verb 'Create' and resource 'mapping run' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of trigger_scan when you need full control over scope or when map-trigger is returning errors.' This tells the agent exactly when to prefer this tool over a key sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return content (variables with path, type, description, schema_version) and is a read-only list operation. No annotations provided, but description is transparent and no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first introduces purpose, second adds return detail and usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no parameters and output schema exists, so return is documented. Description covers purpose, return content, and usage guidance. Fully adequate for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists variables a ticket template can reference, using specific verb 'list' and resource 'variables'. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'preview_ticket_template' by explicitly linking them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: 'Fetch this before authoring or previewing a template with preview_ticket_template.' Implies when to use, though does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states the key behavioral trait: it tests auth without making the provider active. With no annotations, it adequately conveys safety (non-destructive) and testing purpose. It could detail side effects or return values, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simple nature, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention success/failure indication or prerequisites, but is largely complete for a test tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds complete context for both parameters: explaining that 'provider' can be empty to test the current one, and 'config' is for overrides. This significantly adds value beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it tests a ticketing provider's auth without activating it. It uses a specific verb+resource (test, ticketing provider auth) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like configure_ticket_provider and set_active_ticket_provider.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use (for testing auth before activation) and that it doesn't make the provider active. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step remediation: immediate ticket creation then background LLM+JEPA loop. It also mentions polling for progress and provider-agnosticism. This gives the agent clear expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a summary, then step details, then parameter list. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be more concise for such a parameter-heavy tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema description (but output schema exists), the description covers behavior, parameter semantics, and workflow (polling get_ticket_steps). It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed explanations for all 12 parameters, including source (path_id from triage), constraints (risk_score 0.0-1.0, difficulty low/medium/high), and default values. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a remediation ticket and starts two-step remediation. It specifies the resource (remediation ticket) and action (create), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket or update_ticket_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates use after triage/validation tools, suggests polling get_ticket_steps for progress, and notes provider-agnostic behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses behavior: no state modification, exact output fields (rendered_title, rendered_description, fell_back, warning, transform_hint), fallback behavior on failed render, and forced enabled. Despite no annotations, this is comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains output, then details parameters in an Args section. It is slightly verbose but well-organized. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, output fields, behavior (no side effects, fallback), and optional provider-specific hints. Given the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter in detail: template (JSON object with common fields), stage (lifecycle slice with defaults), and provider (optional, yields transform hint). This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool dry-renders a ticket template without modifying state. It uses the precise verb 'Dry-render' and specifies the resource 'TicketTemplate', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket_template_variables or sync_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used to preview template output before saving to a provider, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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:

[![mcp-server-public MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/latent-defense/mcp-server-public/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/latent-defense/mcp-server-public)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-public MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/latent-defense/mcp-server-public/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/latent-defense/mcp-server-public)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/latent-defense/mcp-server-public'

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