Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• apidog_export_markdownB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions grouping behavior but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, whether authentication or project context is required, or whether the output is returned inline or as a file. 'Export' implies a safe operation but does not explicitly rule out modifying data.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences and immediately states the core action and format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second describes grouping behavior and use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the basic export action and grouping. It does not explain what the output looks like, how includeSchemas changes the result, or what happens when project is required. This leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially given the lack of behavioral annotations and output schema.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the 'group by folder or tag' behavior already documented in the groupBy parameter. It does not explain the module, project, or includeSchemas parameters further.

  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: 'Export module documentation as Markdown.' It also specifies a key behavior ('Groups endpoints by folder or tag'), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like apidog_export_curl and apidog_export_postman. The verb 'export' plus resource 'module documentation' and format 'Markdown' make the purpose unambiguous.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The phrase 'Suitable for README or docs sites' provides some usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison. This is only implied usage guidance, not explicit guidance.

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

• apidog_update_schemaB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state ('create or update'), but does not explain what happens when the schema already exists (overwrite vs merge), whether partial definitions are allowed, or any required permissions/order of operations. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundant information; every part contributes to the core 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?

  With no annotations or output schema, and a mutation operation involving a complex nested definition object, the description is too sparse to be complete. Missing key behavioral context (overwrite semantics, project requirements when multiple projects configured could be inferred from schema but not from description) limits the agent's ability to predict side effects.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but because schema coverage is high, 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 a specific action ('Create or update') on a specific resource ('component schema') with a method ('targeted spec import'). It distinguishes from sibling read/delete/list tools (e.g., apidog_get_schema, apidog_delete_schema) by implying targeted update vs full import (apidog_import_openapi).

  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 phrase 'targeted spec import' implies this is for individual schemas rather than full specification imports, but no explicit 'use this when' or 'alternatives' guidance is provided. The tool's purpose can be inferred from context, but usage boundaries are not clearly stated.

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

• apidog_export_postmanA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It details the output format (folder structure, placeholder values) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The term 'convert' is ambiguous regarding whether it modifies the source module.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go 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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no filler.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is minimal. It lacks context about prerequisites, output format details, or how 'placeholder values' relate to parameters. However, for a simple export tool it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (module, baseUrl, project) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning; it only reinforces 'placeholder values' which aligns with the baseUrl default. Thus the baseline of 3 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 'Convert' and the resource 'module to a Postman Collection v2.1 format', with additional detail about folder structure and placeholder values. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like apidog_export_curl and apidog_export_markdown.

  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 exporting to Postman format but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as apidog_export_curl or apidog_export_markdown. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance, though the context makes the intended use fairly clear.

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

• apidog_list_schemasA
  3.6/5.0
  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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or system effects. It adds output field details but not behavioral traits beyond the name.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List all component schemas...' with no wasted words. Every phrase adds useful context, and it is appropriately compact for a simple tool.

  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 straightforward list operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the purpose and the key return fields (types, property counts, referencing endpoints). While it lacks explicit safety guarantees, the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of purpose justify a high score.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by including 'in an Apidog module' which connects to the required 'module' parameter, but it does not elaborate on 'project' or provide syntax details 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 starts with an explicit verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource ('all component schemas') and scope ('in an Apidog module'). It also lists concrete output details (types, property counts, referencing endpoints), making it distinct from siblings like apidog_get_schema or apidog_modules.

  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 retrieving an overview of schemas within a module, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over options like apidog_get_schema (for a single schema) or apidog_list (for generic listing). No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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

• apidog_run_testA
  3.6/5.0
  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 does not mention side effects, prerequisites like CLI installation, failure modes, or output behavior. The phrase 'via CLI' implies execution but gives no details on what happens during or after the run.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go 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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the key parameter selection logic. This is appropriately concise.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, whether the CLI needs to be pre-installed, timeout behavior (though timeoutMs exists in the schema), or how to interpret success/failure. The description is minimal but insufficiently complete for a tool with 7 parameters and no structured guidance beyond the schema.

  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 already covers all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between scenarioId (single) and folderId (all scenarios in a folder), which enriches the terse schema descriptions. It doesn't need to repeat schema details.

  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: 'Run Apidog tests via CLI.' It specifies the verb (run), resource (Apidog tests), and method (via CLI). It also distinguishes between running a single scenario vs. all scenarios in a folder, which sets it apart from sibling tools like apidog_export or apidog_list.

  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 guidance on when to use scenarioId vs. folderId, but it does not compare this tool to alternatives or state when to choose this over other sibling tools. The parameter distinction is useful but not full tool-selection guidance.

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

• apidog_export_curlA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only mentions the output format and placeholder values, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network requests, or how placeholders are represented. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially access live endpoints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go 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 conveys the core functionality without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and output.

  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 is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It fails to mention that the tool supports filtering by tag/path/method, custom headers, or the optional project parameter. These capabilities are only discoverable in the schema, which places extra burden on the agent to infer them.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 tool exports endpoints as curl command examples with placeholder values. This specific verb+resource+output format distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_postman and export_markdown.

  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 a clear context: use this tool when you need curl command examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the format is self-evident, so the intended use case is fairly clear.

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

• apidog_exportA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (full OpenAPI spec) and scope (per module), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or the fact that includeExtensions defaults to true and affects output. Since it's an export, it is likely read-only, but no explicit statement is made.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single clear sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and easy 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 full schema coverage, the description is adequate for an export tool. It lacks some behavioral context like whether it writes files or returns content, but the tool name and schema compensate. Output schema absence is mitigated by the simple export nature.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; default values for oasVersion and includeExtensions are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Export full OpenAPI spec for an Apidog module' clearly states the action (export), the resource (OpenAPI spec), and the target (Apidog module). It differentiates from siblings like apidog_export_curl, apidog_export_postman, and apidog_export_markdown by specifying the OpenAPI spec format, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage context for exporting OpenAPI specs, and the schema's project parameter clarifies 'Required when multiple projects are configured, optional otherwise.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling export tools like apidog_export_postman or apidog_export_curl.

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

• apidog_modulesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies output (names and IDs), but adds no context on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The description is minimally transparent for a simple listing 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 that front-loads the main action and includes relevant detail about output. No wasted 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?

  For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content (names and IDs). It lacks detail about how modules are nested or grouped, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% coverage with the project parameter described as 'Required when multiple projects are configured, optional otherwise.' The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 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 a specific action: 'List all configured Apidog projects and their modules with names and IDs.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like apidog_list or apidog_folders by explicitly focusing on projects and modules.

  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 (listing projects/modules) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer this over apidog_list or apidog_folders, nor any prerequisites. This is implied guidance at best.

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

• apidog_updateA
  3.9/5.0
  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 key behaviors: partial import, single endpoint scope, and no impact on other endpoints. However, it does not mention whether the endpoint must already exist, how merging works, authentication requirements, or response 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word earns its place; no waste 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, nested object, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It clarifies scope and side effects but does not address whether the endpoint must pre-exist, merge semantics, or return value. These would be helpful for safe invocation.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the operation is a partial spec. It does not provide additional semantic details about parameter usage beyond what the schema already states.

  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 updates a single endpoint via targeted partial spec import, using a specific verb+resource. It explicitly distinguishes from bulk updates and other endpoint operations by noting it does not affect other endpoints.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for use: targeted updates to a single endpoint without affecting others. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for bulk updates or full spec imports.

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

• apidog_create_casesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining the internal mechanism ('builds a Postman collection and imports safely') and the non-destructive constraint ('Never overwrites endpoint definitions'). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether existing cases are overwritten by default (though the schema covers the overwriteExisting parameter), rate limits, or permissions. This is useful but not rich behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is only two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, mechanism, and a key safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler. The core 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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's action, its internal collection-building behavior, and the non-destructive guarantee. It doesn't explain the return value, but without an output schema this is less critical. The schema covers parameter details, so the description complements rather than repeats it.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema has 100% parameter coverage and detailed descriptions for each property. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting 'Pass a single-item or multi-item array', which the schema also expresses. Since the schema handles parameter semantics well, the baseline of 3 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create one or more endpoint cases (usage examples)'. It also distinguishes this from other tools by noting 'Never overwrites endpoint definitions — only manages cases', which sets it apart from sibling tools that manage definitions. The verb 'create' and resource 'cases' 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to create endpoint cases. The line 'Never overwrites endpoint definitions — only manages cases' implies a when-not scenario (not for editing definitions) and a safety guarantee, but it doesn't name specific alternative tools. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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

• apidog_deleteA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a non-trivial mechanism: it exports the current spec, removes the target, and reimports with deleteUnmatchedResources. This alerts the agent to potential side effects (e.g., deleting other unmatched resources), which is valuable behavioral transparency, though it stops short of explicitly warning about risks if the spec is stale.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys both the operation and the underlying process without redundant phrasing.

  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 delete tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action and its side-effect-laden mechanism. The schema covers all parameters, and the behavior is disclosed. It does not describe return values, but that is less critical for a delete operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it mentions 'deleteUnmatchedResources' as part of the process, but this is an internal behavior, not a parameter explanation. No further parameter details are needed 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 opens with 'Delete an endpoint from Apidog,' which is a specific verb + resource that clearly states the tool's function. The additional mechanism detail (export spec, remove target, reimport) further distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_delete_schema or apidog_wipe, even though no explicit comparison is made.

  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 is for deleting a single endpoint, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apidog_wipe or apidog_delete_schema. The mechanism described (export/reimport) hints at a spec-based workflow, but no clear 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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

• apidog_diffA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Reports added, removed, and changed endpoints with field-level diffs,' which indicates a read-only analysis function, but it does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes to Apidog state or mention any permission requirements. 'Compare' implies non-mutating, but this is not stated outright.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go 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 that front-loads the primary action and specifies the output. It is concise with no filler 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?

  For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and output type. However, it does not clarify the spec/specPath mutual exclusivity or the conditional requirement for 'project,' which are schema-documented but could be reinforced in the description. Overall, it is reasonably complete but leaves a few contextual gaps.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific details. The description does not clarify the relationship between 'spec' (JSON object) and 'specPath' (file path) as likely alternative inputs, but the schema already documents each parameter 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 the tool's function: comparing current Apidog state against a provided OpenAPI spec and reporting added, removed, and changed endpoints with field-level diffs. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('Apidog state' vs 'OpenAPI spec'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_import_openapi (imports) and apidog_list (lists).

  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 when to use this tool: when you need to identify differences between Apidog and an OpenAPI spec. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage context. No explicit 'use instead' guidance is given.

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

• apidog_foldersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 conveys that this is a read-only analysis (no side effects) and adds concrete details about what it returns: counts, tree, and unfoldered endpoints. However, it does not disclose response format or any prerequisites beyond the schema.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, compact sentence that leads with the main verb and includes the most valuable detail (outputs). No wasted 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?

  For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview. It might be slightly more explicit about what 'counts' refers to (e.g., endpoints per folder), but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity and scope.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'module' and 'project' fully described. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 action ('Analyze folder structure') and the resource ('an Apidog module'), and specifies expected outputs ('counts, tree, unfoldered endpoints'). This differentiates it from siblings like apidog_list (which likely lists modules/endpoints) and apidog_analyze (generic analysis).

  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 one needs folder structure details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apidog_list or apidog_analyze. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

• apidog_getA
  4/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It adds some transparency by noting the response includes 'operation object and referenced schemas', which gives insight into output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error conditions, or other side effects. It provides moderate context 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?

  The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the key inclusions. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

  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?

  Considering the simplicity of the tool, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely adequate. It explains the primary function and what is included in the result. It lacks explicit guidance on distinguishing from related tools, but the schema covers parameter details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this straightforward read operation.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, defining path, method, module, and project. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema handles the explanatory burden effectively.

  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 function: 'Get full details of a single endpoint including operation object and referenced schemas'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('single endpoint'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like apidog_list (which lists endpoints) and apidog_get_schema (which retrieves a specific schema). This is a precise and non-tautological purpose.

  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 use case: when you need full details of a single endpoint. It clearly communicates the context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use apidog_list for listing endpoints' or 'use apidog_get_schema for schema retrieval'. Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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

• apidog_get_schemaA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only retrieval ('Get') and discloses the dual output (schema definition and referencing endpoints). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, though the verb strongly implies it. It could also mention error handling if schema not found, but that's not essential for a read 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?

  One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no filler.

  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 the tool's purpose and return content sufficiently. The input schema covers parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. Although no output schema is provided, the description explains the two-part result. Could mention that module is a required contextual parameter, but that's in the schema.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%; all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond 'by name', so it meets the baseline of 3.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('full JSON Schema definition by name'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('plus list of endpoints that reference it') that separates it from sibling tools like apidog_list_schemas or apidog_get. It clearly states the tool's scope.

  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 vs alternatives. The description implies it's the go-to for retrieving a named schema, but doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling apidog_list_schemas exists, guidance would be beneficial.

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

• apidog_import_openapiA
  4/5.0
  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 disclosing behavior. It mentions auto-batching to avoid payload limits and support for both file path and inline JSON. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting existing endpoints or deleting unmatched ones, which are important for a mutation tool. These are covered in the schema parameters, but the description itself is thin on side-effect 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Import an OpenAPI spec') and then adds key operational details (batching, input formats). 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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is compact but the schema provides thorough parameter documentation. The description adds the essential operational context (module, input flexibility, batching). It could have summarized the overwrite/delete behavior, but the schema already documents those parameters, so the completeness is adequate.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that input can be a file path or inline JSON (spec vs specPath) and relates batchSize to the auto-batching behavior. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions, which only state the field names 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Import an OpenAPI spec into an Apidog module.' It uses a specific verb ('import') and resource ('OpenAPI spec'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling export/list tools. The mention of auto-batching and input flexibility adds further specificity.

  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 the tool should be used when importing an OpenAPI spec into an Apidog module, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There are no references to other sibling tools, so the usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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

• apidog_listA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits such as keyword search with relevance scoring, filters, and pagination, which add value beyond a basic 'list' statement. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format or any side effects, which is a notable gap 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List and search endpoints') and then lists key capabilities. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

  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 rich schema (10 params, all described) and no output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to select the tool. It conveys the tool's scope and key features at a high level. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of the response shape means the agent must infer what a list of endpoints looks like, so it's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'scored by relevance' is already present in the schema for the query parameter, so it adds no new meaning. It does group parameters into categories (filters, pagination) but doesn't explain interactions beyond what the schema already covers.

  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 ('List and search') and clearly identifies the resource ('endpoints in an Apidog module'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like apidog_get (single endpoint) and apidog_modules (list modules) by stating the list/search scope.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when listing or searching endpoints in a module. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident from the verbs and resource, so it's not merely implied.

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

• apidog_pipelineA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the destructive first step ('wipe module'), batching behavior in step 3, and flexibility in input ('file paths or inline data'). It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, but the key pipeline behavior is 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 a single, dense sentence that lists the three pipeline steps efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding, and the enumerative structure is easy to parse. 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?

  For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides crucial context by explaining the order and nature of the steps, which aids understanding why the parameters exist. It does not describe return values or error handling, but the pipeline steps give sufficient high-level completeness for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of extra context by mentioning that the pipeline accepts 'file paths or inline data', which maps to openapiSpec vs openapiSpecPath, but it does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as a 3-step pipeline with enumerated actions (wipe, create cases, overlay OpenAPI spec), using a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'pipeline'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by combining their individual functions into one composite operation.

  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 through the pipeline steps, indicating when to use it (when a full setup is required) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like running the individual tools (apidog_wipe, apidog_create_cases, apidog_import_openapi) separately. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is reasonably clear.

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

• apidog_delete_schemaA
  4.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses both the destructive action ('Delete') and a key safety guard ('Refuses if referenced'), which is valuable. It does not detail success/failure responses or reversibility, but the guard is a significant transparency addition beyond the bare 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 one concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and condition. It is well-structured and every word contributes meaning.

  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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and an important safety condition. The complete schema covers parameters. The only minor gap is no mention of return values or error behavior, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (name, module, project all described), so the schema already provides the needed semantics. The description text adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('component schema'), which is more specific than the sibling apidog_delete. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral constraint ('Refuses if the schema is still referenced by endpoints'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and specific.

  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 use for deleting component schemas and provides a clear context for when the operation will fail (if referenced by endpoints). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like apidog_delete or list_schemas, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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

• apidog_wipeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is irreversible and requires a confirm flag, clearly signaling destructive behavior. This is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs before invoking a bulk-delete tool.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the core action, safety requirement, and consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is actioned, the safety gate, and the irreversibility. It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether folders are also deleted) or the optional 'project' parameter, but the schema already handles parameter requirements. It is sufficient for most practical uses.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document each field. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema—it references confirm=true but the schema already states 'Must be true to proceed'. No additional syntax, format, or nuanced semantics are provided.

  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 ('Wipe'), the resource ('endpoints in an Apidog module'), and the scope ('ALL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_delete (which likely targets individual endpoints) and apidog_export (which is non-destructive).

  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 by highlighting the 'confirm=true' safety gate and the irreversibility, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., apidog_delete for single endpoints) or when not to use it. The condition 'Requires confirm=true' is a usage gate but not a comparative guideline.

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

• apidog_analyzeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the two analysis modes and what they inspect (missing summaries, duplicate IDs, orphaned schemas), implying a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify data, which is a minor gap given destructive siblings exist.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and concisely covers the key parameters and their defaults without fluff. 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?

  The description covers the core behavior (checks and defaults) and the parameter semantics. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns or the format of the analysis result. This omission prevents a perfect score 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'checks' parameter by explaining what 'coverage' and 'validate' actually do (e.g., missing summaries, duplicate IDs), which goes beyond the schema's enum listing. This justifies a score above baseline.

  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 ('Analyze') and resource ('Apidog module'), and enumerates the two check modes ('coverage' and 'validate') with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_export, apidog_delete, and apidog_get, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description explains how to use the 'checks' parameter to select coverage, validate, or both, and notes the default behavior. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools. Since no sibling tool performs analysis, this is sufficient.

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

• apidog_bulk_updateA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Set confirm=false to preview,' warning against accidental mutations, and enumerates supported operations. It lacks details on auth or side effects, but the preview mechanism is a key safety 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?

  Two short sentences and a compact list deliver high information density without fluff. The most important details are front-loaded: batch update, targeting modes, supported operations, and preview safety.

  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 15-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview including target selection and preview mode. It does not describe the preview output format or operation interactions, but the rich schema covers parameter-level details.

  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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the OR relationship between endpoints and filters and by emphasizing the confirm flag's role in previewing. This elevates it above baseline.

  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 opens with 'Batch update endpoints,' clearly specifying the action, resource, and scope. The list of supported operations and targeting modes further distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_update, which is singular in nature.

  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 explains how to target endpoints (explicit array OR keyword filters) and mentions the preview mode, giving clear operational guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'batch' strongly implies when to use this tool.

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