tool-mcp-server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries, such as tool_file_to_base64 vs tool_image_to_base64, tool_encoding vs tool_base_converter, and tool_json_format vs tool_json_stringify. The absence of explicit descriptions further hampers an agent's ability to distinguish between them.
Naming Consistency2/5The server mixes verb_noun meta-tools (list_tools, execute_tool) with noun-based utility tools (tool_hash, tool_json), and some tools include their category in the name while others do not. This inconsistency makes it difficult to predict tool names.
Tool Count2/5With 58 tools, the server is overloaded. Although it aims to be a general-purpose toolkit, the sheer number exceeds the 'too many' threshold and includes many trivial variations, making the set feel bloated.
Completeness3/5The server covers a broad range of utility functions, but notable gaps exist such as image resizing, XML/HTML processing, and file system operations. These gaps are moderate and can be worked around for general use.
Average 2.2/5 across 58 of 58 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
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 failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists parameter names and types. It does not explain what operation is performed, whether it reads or writes, or any side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but under-specifies the tool. Listing empty parameter definitions without context is not effective conciseness; it omits essential behavioral information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a protobuf processing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It offers no help in understanding input requirements, output structure, or tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, every parameter description is a tautology ('Data', 'Mode', 'Indent') that adds no meaning. The description also fails to explain allowed modes, data format, or how indentSize affects output, especially since 'decoded' appears as both an input schema property and output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only says 'Protobuf' which is a restatement of the tool name and does not specify a verb or action. It fails to state whether the tool encodes, decodes, or processes protobuf data, making its purpose ambiguous and indistinguishable from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling encoding, crypto, and format tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, return values, or operational behavior. It only states that it outputs info, which is tautological.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not concise in a meaningful way—it under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters. The few words add no value beyond restating the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is trivial in parameter count but the description is inadequate: no output schema, no annotations, and no meaningful details about inputs or outputs. It fails to provide a complete picture of the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'info' is described only as 'Info' in both schema and description. The description labels it as an output rather than an input, contradicting the schema's definition of an input property, which is misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Device Info' restates the tool name without specifying an action or what kind of device info is returned. The output section is equally vague, only repeating 'info (json): Info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or what alternatives exist. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, limitations, or exact behavior. It does not mention supported encodings, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible or destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but not appropriately concise—it is under-specified. It lists parameters without any useful content, making it sparse rather than efficiently informative. The structure is clean but the content is nearly empty.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. For a tool with four parameters and no return value details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of 'mode', available encoding types, or what the output will look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, both the schema and description merely repeat parameter names as their descriptions ('Input', 'Encoding', 'Mode'). The description adds no additional meaning, examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters, so it fails to explain how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description labels the tool as 'Encoding' but does not specify what kind of encoding (base64, hex, URL, etc.) or what operation it performs. It reads more as a category title than a clear purpose, and the sibling context shows many similar crypto tools without differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_crypto, tool_hash, or tool_base64_to_file. The description lacks any indication of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios.
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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the image is displayed, returned, or validated, nor any side effects. The '[viewer]' prefix hints at a viewing role but provides no concrete behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but every line wastes space: the title restates the name and the parameter list duplicates schema information with an incorrect type. It is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is a placeholder. Given the tool's potential role among many image tools, the description fails to provide even a minimal understanding of what 'preview' means or what the user can expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the file parameter in detail (base64, filename, mimeType). The description's 'file (bytes): File' is not only redundant but misleading, as the schema defines an object, not raw bytes. This actively detracts from understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Image Preview' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb or resource description, and does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling image tools like tool_exif_viewer or tool_image_compress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no situational context, exclusions, or references to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing. It does not mention encryption/decryption, side effects, authentication, or output handling. The tool is a black box.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but under-specified. It lists parameters and outputs in a structured format, but the content is so sparse that it fails to communicate the tool's purpose or usage. It is not concise in a useful way; it is simply incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears to be a crypto-related operation (JCE), but with no annotations, no output schema, and unexplained parameters, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema_description_coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in both the schema and the tool description are trivial labels (Data, Mode, Decoded) with no explanation of their meaning or accepted values. The description adds no value beyond the schema and leaves the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lacks a verb and any explanation of what JCE does. It only repeats the tool name and lists parameters, offering no actionable purpose. It is essentially a tautology, providing no distinction from sibling crypto tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea why this tool exists or when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information such as side effects, return values, or prerequisites. The description only repeats the parameter name and type without disclosing any behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The content is redundant with the schema and fails to provide useful information, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple one-parameter tool, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or expected output, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the single parameter with a description ('Value'), and the tool description duplicates this exactly. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially the word 'Boolean' plus a parameter list, with no verb or action. It merely restates the tool name and provides no indication of what the tool does, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from siblings like tool_string or tool_number. No context 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.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It merely labels the parameter as 'File' and makes no mention of behavior, side effects, return value, or required permissions, offering no behavioral insight at all.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified to the point of being vacuous rather than concise. It contains no actionable information and lacks any meaningful structure that would help an agent understand the tool. This is absence of content, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the full burden falls on the description to explain the tool's purpose and usage. The description provides nothing about functionality, when to use it, or expected outcomes, making it completely inadequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for the nested file object (base64, filename, mimeType) with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing the word 'File', but it does not obscure the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description simply states '[basic] File' and repeats the parameter name/type, without indicating any action, operation, or resource manipulation. It is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like tool_file_to_base64, tool_file_to_string, or tool_string_to_file. The description neither states a use case nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the tool returns the value, modifies state, or has 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but brevity here is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a complete sentence and any meaningful structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description omits essential details such as return behavior or purpose. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to understand what this tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—both simply say 'value: Value'—but the baseline applies since the parameter is fully documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially the word 'String', which restates the tool name without any verb or resource. It does not indicate what action the tool performs or what it returns, making it a pure tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_string_to_file or tool_string_preview. The description provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to explain what operation is performed, what color formats are accepted as input, how conversion works, or how errors are handled. The parameter/output listing adds no behavioral context 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and uses a clean list format, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It repeats schema information and omits essential operational details, so each line does not meaningfully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple utility context, the lack of an output schema and annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot infer the actual conversion logic, accepted input formats, or edge cases, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already has 100% coverage with trivial descriptions (e.g., 'Color', 'HEX'). The description adds only the grouping of 'color' as input and the three as outputs, which is implicit but not explicit in the schema. However, it does not clarify formats, allowed values, or relationships between parameters beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just '[utility] Color' with parameter/output lists, lacking an explicit verb or action. It implies a color conversion utility (input color, outputs hex/rgb/hsl), but never states 'convert' or 'parse'. It is distinguishable from siblings only by its name, not by a clear operational statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or when to choose alternatives. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; the description is a bare label and data list.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists parameter and output names without explaining what the tool does, how inputs are transformed, what side effects occur, or what the outputs represent. This is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses a clear list structure, but it wastes space by restating the schema's single-word descriptions. It provides no additional insight and is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is thoroughly incomplete from an agent's perspective. It doesn't convey the conversion logic, expected outputs, or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's purpose and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers all four properties with single-word descriptions (100% coverage), and the description repeats these names without adding value. It introduces a 'Parameters' vs 'Outputs' split, but the schema contains all four as properties, creating ambiguity about which are truly inputs versus outputs. No format, constraints, or relationships are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description offers the title 'Docker Converter' and lists parameters and outputs, but never states an explicit verb-action or what conversion is performed. It does not specify whether it converts commands to Dockerfile/compose or the reverse, and it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling utility tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what scenarios it is intended for, or which alternatives might be better. The description gives no context or exclusions whatsoever.
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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'File' as input and 'Info' as output, offering no details on what processing occurs, what information is extracted, or any side effects. This is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than refined conciseness. It lists parameters and outputs in a structured format, but every sentence is essentially a placeholder that fails to convey meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely handles complex office document formats, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information on supported file formats, output structure, error handling, or security considerations. There is no output schema to compensate, and the input schema's nested 'file' object is not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description merely repeats the schema property names ('file', 'info') without adding explanation. Worse, it labels 'info' as an output while the input schema includes it as a property, creating ambiguity about the actual input/output contract. The schema descriptions are minimal ('Info'), and the description does not clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a title with 'Office Viewer' and a list of parameters/outputs, but lacks a clear verb-resource statement. It does not explain what 'viewing' an office file entails or differentiate itself from sibling tools like tool_exif_viewer or tool_json_preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of supported file types, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not explain whether this tool performs replacement, global matching, or how the 'test' and 'matches' outputs are produced. This is a significant gap for a tool with six parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal but under-specified rather than concise. It is a bare list of parameters and outputs without explanatory sentences, which is not effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a regex utility with six parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the tool behaves, how outputs are formatted, or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely placeholder words ('Text', 'Pattern', 'Flags', 'Replacement'). The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving an agent without understanding that 'pattern' is a regex pattern or what flag syntax is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Regex' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, indicating the general domain but with no specific verb or operation (e.g., match, replace, test). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like tool_string or tool_json.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply lists parameters and outputs without contextualizing when regex operations would be appropriate.
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, the description carries full burden, but it offers no behavioral details—no indication of side effects, return semantics, permissions, or error behaviors. It merely restates schema fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is concise and includes a clear list of parameters and outputs, but it is under-specified and uses a terse format that prioritizes brevity over usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the operation and response. It does not, leaving the tool's functionality opaque even for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial labels ('X', 'Y', 'File'). The description adds no explanation of what x/y represent (e.g., pixel coordinates, image-space) or the output structures. It fails to compensate for the shallow schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states 'Image Coordinates' and lists parameters/outputs without specifying any action. It fails to convey what the tool does (e.g., compute, map, extract) and does not distinguish from sibling image tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description lacks any contextual or conditional instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only lists parameters and outputs. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, path syntax, side effects, or return format, so an agent has no idea what to expect upon invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and uses clear section labels, making it easy to scan. However, the parameter/output lists largely repeat the schema fields, and the title contributes no functional information. It is acceptable in size but not exceptionally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide robust behavioral context, but it only offers a skeletal parameter/output list. It omits path syntax, error behavior, usage examples, and any clarification of the confusing schema, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some semantic value by distinguishing inputs (json, path) from outputs (string, number, boolean, object, array, type), which the flat schema does not clarify. However, it omits the other six schema properties and does not explain the path syntax or the meaning of 'type', so it only partially compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a noun phrase, 'JSON Path', which merely restates the tool name. It lists json and path as parameters, but the core action (extracting a value from JSON using a path) is not explicitly stated, leaving the purpose implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools such as tool_json_format or tool_json_parse. The description offers no practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, errors, signature verification, or required secrets. The inclusion of header/payload/signature in the input schema while the description calls them outputs creates ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified and misuses structure by presenting outputs as a separate section without explicitly stating the tool's action. It is not front-loaded with a useful purpose statement; '[crypto] JWT' is a category label, not a description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should fully explain return values, but it only lists names with minimal type hints. It does not explain the format of header/payload, error behavior, or the relationship between the token input and the listed outputs. The input schema's inclusion of output fields further confuses the tool's contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It restates parameter names and adds '(json)' type hints, but it introduces an inconsistent parameter/output split that conflicts with the flat input schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of the token parameter or the conditions for header/payload/signature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a label '[crypto] JWT' with a list of parameters and outputs. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'decode', 'parse', 'verify') to state what the tool does. The outputs imply token decoding, but the purpose is not explicitly stated and does not distinguish from sibling crypto tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool name and siblings suggest it is for JWT operations, but the description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides zero information about side effects, return values, or processing behavior, making the tool's operation completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The parameter listing duplicates what is already in the schema, and the '[basic] Number' prefix adds no value. Every part should serve a purpose, but here none of the content is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior and return value. It does neither, leaving the tool incomplete for any meaningful agent use. The single parameter is self-referential and provides no contextual insight.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description simply repeats the schema's 'value' parameter without adding new meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the baseline of 3 applies despite the lack of additional semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[basic] Number' restates the tool name without any verb or action. It does not state what the tool does, making it a tautology. It also fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like tool_string or tool_boolean.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, permissions, reversibility, error behaviors, or whether it performs both encryption and decryption. The parameter 'operation' hints at variability but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and under-specified. While brevity is good, this crosses into insufficient detail. The structure is a bare list of parameter names without contextual sentences. It fails to convey essential information, making it not genuinely concise but merely skeletal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'result' is, how 'operation' works, or what the tool actually accomplishes. An AI agent would have no confidence in invoking this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema parameter names (data, key, iv, algorithm, mode, operation) without adding any meaning beyond the schema's one-word descriptions. It does not explain valid values, formats, or relationships (e.g., which algorithms support which modes). Thus it does not elevate above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a tautology: '[crypto] Crypto' with parameter names but no verb or explicit action. It does not state what operation is performed (encrypt? decrypt? both?). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like tool_hash, tool_hmac, or tool_classic_cipher, all of which have clearer intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of many cryptographic sibling tools, this is a critical omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, required permissions, or what the return behavior is. Listing an 'Outputs' section is not enough; it lacks any explanation of the tool's behavior or assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but under-specified. It is a bare list of parameters and outputs with no explanatory narrative. The structure is not front-loaded with a summary of purpose or behavior; it jumps straight to parameter listings. This is not conciseness but under-specification, similar to the TDQS 1.1 example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It does not clarify how the parameters relate to each other (e.g., is 'hash' both input and output?), what algorithms are supported, or what the output format looks like. For a crypto-related tool, the description is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description simply repeats the parameter names and their placeholder descriptions (e.g., 'data (string): Data') without adding any meaning. It does not explain what 'category' represents, what values 'algorithm' accepts, or how 'outputFormat' affects the result. The description adds zero value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is not warranted; a 2 reflects the redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with '[crypto] Hash' which restates the tool name without a clear verb phrase. It fails to specify what the tool actually does—for example, whether it computes a hash of the input data, verifies a hash, or something else. This is essentially a tautology and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like tool_hmac or tool_crypto.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or any exclusions. While it is not misleading, it offers zero usage context, so it scores at the 'no guidance' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention what happens with invalid JSON, whether output is escaped, whether formatting is preserved, or any side effects. The description also confuses matters by listing 'string' as an output while the schema incorrectly includes it as an input property.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It uses a simple list format but omits any explanatory sentence. Every word is generic and does not add meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only one real input parameter and no output schema, the description should at least state the transformation clearly and note any formatting/escaping behavior. The current description is inadequate, especially given the confusing schema that lists the output as a property and the need to differentiate from sibling JSON tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'json' is the input and 'string' is the output, which partially corrects the schema's ambiguous inclusion of both as properties. However, it provides no details about expected JSON structure, escaping, or the exact format of the output string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name "JSON Stringify" with a parameter/output list. It implies a conversion from JSON to string but never explicitly states that the tool serializes JSON into a string representation. It also fails to distinguish this from siblings like tool_json_format, tool_json_parse, or tool_json_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to pick this over tool_json_format or tool_json_parse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any output format details beyond the vague 'Result', error conditions, or how the domain parameter is validated. The description provides essentially no behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but under-specified. It simply repeats the name and parameter names without informative content. Conciseness is not valuable when it removes all substance; the few lines present don't earn their place because they add no information beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what the result JSON contains (e.g., registration details, dates, nameservers). It only says 'result (json): Result', which is an empty placeholder. The description lacks completeness even for a basic lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% because both 'domain' and 'result' have descriptions. The description repeats 'domain (string): Domain' exactly as the schema, adding no extra meaning. The unusual presence of 'result' as an input property is not clarified, but the schema already documents both, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just '[dev] Whois' – it restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It does not state that the tool performs a WHOIS lookup or retrieves domain registration information. A single noun is a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains no other WHOIS-like tool, but the description offers no context about its appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. This is a lack of guidance rather than misleading guidance.
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 disclosing behavior. It only lists inputs and outputs, without any information about side effects, lossy/lossless nature, quality ranges, format constraints, or what the 'info' output contains. This is insufficient for a tool that manipulates images.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The bullet list merely echoes the schema and does not provide explanatory sentences that earn their place. It lacks a clear narrative of the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, a nested file object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value 'info', the valid output formats, quality semantics, or any edge cases. The tool's behavior is only vaguely implied by its name, leaving significant information gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the description fails to add meaning beyond them. It repeats the same minimal labels ('Quality', 'Format') and omits the 'info' parameter that appears in the schema, potentially confusing users. No details on quality values, format options, or file structure are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description consists mainly of the heading 'Image Compress' followed by parameter/output lists, which essentially restates the tool name without adding specific functionality details. It does not clearly explain what compression entails or how it differs from sibling image tools like tool_image_editor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, limitations, or instructions for choosing compression parameters. The description provides no context for when to prefer this over other image-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists outputs, which hints at return data, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, or what happens when the timezone parameter is omitted. The '[viewer]' label suggests non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit or detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and follows a clear section structure (Parameters/Outputs). However, it wastes space by duplicating schema content without adding valuable context. It is concise but not informative, and the lack of a narrative description is a structural weakness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is still incomplete for selection and invocation. It does not explain the tool's core purpose, when to use it, or how outputs are formatted. The misleading parameter/output split further reduces completeness. An agent cannot confidently decide when to use this tool or how to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description claims only 'timezone' is a parameter and lists the other four schema properties as outputs, but the input schema includes all five as properties. This directly contradicts the schema and misleads the agent about what parameters are accepted. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds confusion rather than meaning, so the baseline of 3 is severely reduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[viewer] Time' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lists parameters and outputs but never explicitly states what the tool does (e.g., 'get current time in a timezone'). The verb 'viewer' implies a read operation but does not specify the action or resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, use cases, or exclusions. It lacks any sentence explaining when a user should invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions inputs and outputs ('value' string, 'parsed' json), with no details on error handling, validation, edge cases, or what 'parsed' means structurally. This is almost entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but brevity comes at the cost of substance. It has a structured Parameters/Outputs layout, yet the content is under-specified; this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. A minimal description that omits essential information earns a low score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is nearly a black box. The presence of numerous sibling JSON tools (tool_json_parse, tool_json_stringify, tool_json_format) makes the lack of distinguishing context critical. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the descriptions in both the schema and the tool description are tautological ('Value', 'Parsed') and add no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description does not clarify format, constraints, or examples, so it stays at baseline without upward adjustment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially '[basic] JSON', which merely restates the tool name 'tool_json' without stating what the tool does. The parameter and output listing (value -> parsed) hints at a JSON parsing operation, but no explicit verb or resource is stated, failing to distinguish it from siblings like tool_json_parse or tool_json_stringify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling JSON tools. The description provides no context, use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not. There is no information about output format, validation, truncation, or any side effects. The behavioral nature of 'preview' remains entirely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief with no wasted words, consisting of a title and a single parameter line. It is concise and easily scannable, though the brevity contributes to lack of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what the preview shows, what the return value is, or how this relates to other JSON utilities. The description is inadequate even for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single 'json' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description merely repeats 'json (json): JSON' without adding any new meaning. The parameter name and type are self-explanatory, so the schema carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name: 'JSON Preview' with a '[viewer]' tag. The verb 'Preview' is vague and does not specify what the operation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like tool_json_format or tool_json_parse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state any preconditions, exclusions, or context for the preview operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it generates or validates codes, how secrets should be encoded (e.g., base32), or what happens on invalid input. The 'Outputs' list is present but lacks semantic explanation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and organized into clear Parameters/Outputs sections, making it easy to scan. However, the individual parameter descriptions ('Secret', 'Digits') are pure tautologies that add no information, and the opening '[utility] TOTP' is just a title. It is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's core behavior, required input formats, defaults, or error behavior, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke it correctly. The output list gives a hint but not enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage, though descriptions are just field names. The description adds meaningful structure by separating inputs (secret, digits, period) from outputs (code, remaining, counter), which clarifies role beyond the flat schema. However, it does not explain value formats (e.g., secret encoding) or defaults, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with '[utility] TOTP' and lists parameters/outputs, but never states a verb or explicit action such as 'generate' or 'verify'. It relies on the reader inferring the tool's purpose from the name and field names, making it effectively a tautology of the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical use cases. The description simply lists fields without any contextual or comparative information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only lists output field names and types, omitting error behavior, timezone assumptions, validation rules, or the number of next runs returned. The read-only/computational nature is implied but not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with Parameters/Outputs sections, but it is under-specified. It lacks a purpose statement and reads as a fragment rather than a coherent description. Under-specification is not good conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not describe the content or structure of parsed and nextRuns, nor any behavioral details like error handling or timezone behavior. Agents must guess what the outputs contain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explicitly separating 'expression' as the only parameter and 'parsed'/'nextRuns' as outputs, which resolves ambiguity in the schema where all three appear as properties. However, it does not explain the expression format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state what the tool does; it only presents the name 'Crontab' and lists parameters/outputs. There is no action verb like 'parse' or 'compute', so the purpose must be inferred from the output field names 'parsed' and 'nextRuns'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what problems it solves, or how it relates to sibling tools. The description gives no context, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely lists parameters and an output without explaining the verification logic, possible error conditions, side effects, or how 'valid' is computed. 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but wastes the available space by simply echoing parameter names already present in the schema. The list format is clear, but the content is redundant, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'category' or 'algorithm' mean, how the verification is performed, or what the valid boolean indicates beyond a trivial label. The agent would be unable to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions in the schema are trivial (e.g., 'Data', 'Hash'). The tool description repeats these without adding any meaning about allowed categories, algorithm formats, or the relationship between inputs and the 'valid' output. It adds no value beyond the schema, so it falls below the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hash Verify' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal elaboration. It does not state a clear verb+resource beyond the name itself, and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like tool_hmac_verify or tool_crypto. The parameter list adds no purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only says 'string' as input and 'json' as output. It fails to mention what constitutes valid input, how errors like malformed JSON are handled, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but under-specified—it is not conciseness that removes fluff but rather a lack of substance. While the 'Parameters' / 'Outputs' structure is tidy, the content merely restates the schema labels and offers no additional insight. More useful detail would be required to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a misleading input schema (including both 'json' and 'string'), the description is far from complete. It gives no indication of the expected input format, the shape of the returned JSON, or any edge-case behavior. An agent cannot confidently use this tool based solely on the provided definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema's descriptions are just 'JSON' and 'String', which add little semantic value. The description's parameter list only mentions 'string', omitting the 'json' property that appears in the input schema. This creates ambiguity and does not clarify what each parameter means or how they interact, so it falls below the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'JSON Parse' appears in a heading. It does not clearly specify the action (e.g., 'Parses a JSON string into structured JSON data') or distinguish this tool from siblings like tool_json_format, tool_json_stringify, or tool_yaml_to_json. The generic language adds no unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, expected input formats, or contexts where this is the preferred choice. It simply lists a parameter and output without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields (added, removed, unchanged, diff, changes) without explaining how the diff is computed (e.g., line-level vs character-level, case sensitivity, output format of 'diff' and 'changes'). This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and organized into Parameters and Outputs sections, which clarifies the input/output separation. However, it lacks a leading explanatory sentence and reads more like a structured list than a cohesive description. It is not verbose but also not well-rounded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide a complete picture of the tool's behavior. It clarifies that only text1 and text2 are inputs (while the schema confusingly includes output properties), but it does not define the structure of 'diff' or 'changes' values, leaving the tool's functionality underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats the schema property descriptions ('Text 1', 'Text 2', etc.) but adds type clarity for 'diff' and 'changes' as 'json', which the schema lacks. This minor addition keeps it at baseline without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[text] Diff' which is a vague label rather than a clear statement of functionality. It lists parameters and outputs but never explicitly says 'computes the difference between two texts'. The purpose is implied by the tool name and parameter names, but not clearly articulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools like tool_string or tool_hash.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 offers only a bare parameter/output listing. It discloses no details about conversion mechanics, edge cases (e.g., binary data, file size limits), or any behavioral traits beyond the basic transformation, placing all burden on the minimal text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses clear labels (Parameters, Outputs), but it repeats the tool name and provides only minimal content. It is not empty, but it under-specifies rather than being effectively concise, as every sentence adds little information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a nested input object and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the input format (binary bytes vs. base64 object) and the output structure, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the complex schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's parameter note ('file (bytes)') contradicts the schema, where 'file' is an object with base64, filename, and mimeType properties. It also lists an 'Outputs' section but does not clarify the relationship between the top-level 'base64' input property and the output, adding no meaningful semantics beyond an ambiguous schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description simply restates the tool name ('File To Base64') without defining the action beyond the title. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like tool_image_to_base64 or tool_base64_to_file, and the core purpose is only implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers minimal behavioral context. It lists outputs (image, dataUri) but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or the behavior of error correction or color handling. The description does not contradict annotations but fails to disclose meaningful behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but is essentially a structured list that repeats the schema. It lacks a prose explanation that front-loads the tool's purpose. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a QR code generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state which parameters are required, default values, or how the output image is returned. The confusion from the schema's inclusion of output properties as inputs is only partially resolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains descriptions for all parameters, but they are just property names (e.g., 'Data', 'Size'). The description repeats these without adding details like valid error correction levels, color format, or units. It does, however, clarify that 'image' and 'dataUri' are outputs, which helps disambiguate from the schema's inclusion of them as properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'QRCode' with a parameter list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Generate' or 'Create', so it does not clearly state what the tool does. The resource is identified but the action is implied, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool tool_qrcode_decode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to decode or other image tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states that the output is a file in bytes. It does not disclose behavior around invalid base64, edge cases, or how mimeType and filename are used. The ambiguity between the nested 'file' object and flat parameters is also unaddressed, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact but consists mainly of a redundant list that mirrors the schema. The opening line repeats the tool name, and there is no concise purpose sentence. It is functional but not well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool schema includes both a nested 'file' object and flat fields, but the description ignores this ambiguity and offers no example or clarification. Without an output schema, the minimal 'Outputs: file (bytes)' is insufficient for a complete understanding of the conversion process and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for its parameters, and the description repeats the same trivial descriptions (e.g., 'Base64', 'Filename', 'MIME Type') without adding any further meaning. It also omits the 'file' nested parameter, which is present in the schema, potentially misleading the agent about the actual parameter structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Base64 To File' and lists parameters and outputs, which implies the tool converts base64 data into a file. However, it lacks an explicit verb+resource statement and does not distinguish from sibling conversion tools like tool_file_to_base64 or tool_string_to_file. The purpose is understandable but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions any exclusions nor compares with sibling tools. The description simply lists parameters and outputs without 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 are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the parameter list. It does not state whether the tool computes or verifies HMAC, what output format(s) are returned, or any side effects/preconditions. Additionally, the schema includes 'hmac' as a property while the description lists it only as an output, creating ambiguity about whether hmac is an input or output—this inconsistency is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is terse and front-loaded with '[crypto] HMAC', but the parameter list is repetitive of the schema and not structured as helpful sentences. It is under-specified rather than elegantly concise; while short, it does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is completely inadequate for a crypto tool. It omits critical details like supported algorithms, output encoding formats, whether verification is included, and how the 'hmac' parameter behaves (input vs. output). The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description provides no context beyond a bare list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a one-word description), so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list exactly mirrors the schema and adds no extra meaning—e.g., it does not clarify valid values for 'algorithm' or 'outputFormat'. It neither improves nor hurts parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'HMAC' as a category/name but does not use a specific verb like 'compute' or 'generate'. The parameter list (data, key, algorithm, outputFormat) implies HMAC generation, but the purpose is vague and not explicitly distinguished from sibling tools like tool_hmac_verify. It is not a pure tautology, but it lacks a clear action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tool_hmac_verify, tool_crypto). There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or context. It simply lists parameters and outputs, offering no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and an output, but does not explain what transformation is applied, whether the operation is reversible, which algorithms are supported, or how the shift interacts with the algorithm. 'Outputs: result' is minimal and even conflicts with the input schema which also lists result as an input property.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and has a clean structure with parameter and output sections. However, the parameter lines closely mirror the schema and add little value, so the conciseness is acceptable but the content is largely redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a crypto tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining algorithm semantics, shift usage, and expected result. It does none of this, leaving the agent with an ambiguous skeleton. Sibling tool names also suggest a crowded crypto/encoding space, making the missing differentiation more damaging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description simply repeats the schema's parameter names and descriptions, adding no accepted values, examples, or units. The 'Outputs: result' line is a small clarification, but it is confusing because the input schema also includes result as a property.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with '[crypto] Classic Cipher', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and category. It does not state a specific action such as 'encrypt' or 'decrypt', nor does it clarify what 'Classic Cipher' actually does. The parameter list does not provide a clear verb+resource purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternative crypto tools such as tool_crypto, tool_hash, or tool_hmac. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must explain behavior, but it does not. It fails to state how the value is converted, what units are accepted for fromUnit, how precision affects output, or why celsius/fahrenheit/kelvin appear both as outputs and as input schema properties. This ambiguity is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured as a list, but the opening '[utility] Temperature' is vague and does not communicate purpose. The parameter and output lists are useful but lack narrative context, so the structure is acceptable yet not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain inputs, outputs, and conversion logic. It lists output fields but never states the relationship between the input value/fromUnit and the computed celsius/fahrenheit/kelvin values, leaving critical gaps for a converter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the parameter names without adding meaning: fromUnit values, precision format, and the role of celsius/fahrenheit/kelvin as inputs or outputs remain unexplained. It 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.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Temperature' with a parameter/output list, but no verb or explicit statement like 'Converts a temperature value between units.' It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling conversion tools such as tool_currency or tool_base_converter, relying only on the tool name to convey purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it is appropriate, or what conditions apply. The description only lists parameters and outputs, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists input/output fields. It does not mention currency code format, data source, rate timing, error handling, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is that it produces a converted amount and rate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The structure is clean with separate 'Parameters' and 'Outputs' sections, and the description is short. However, it is under-specified; while not verbose, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less effective than a tool description that includes a purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify expected currency codes, data source, rate context, or edge cases. The description provides only minimal context, leaving the agent to guess critical operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds semantic value by clearly distinguishing parameters (amount, from, to) from outputs (converted, rate), a distinction the schema does not make. However, it does not elaborate on the format or allowed values of the parameters, so it only partially compensates for the schema's terse property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description labels the tool as 'Currency' and lists parameters (amount, from, to) and outputs (converted, rate), which implies currency conversion. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action statement, so the tool's purpose is only inferred from field names rather than clearly defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. The description is a bare listing of parameters and outputs, providing no situational cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior, but it only states that a file (bytes) is input and content (string) is output. It doesn't mention encoding, how the file is interpreted, or any error handling, leaving the actual transformation opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The format is clear and easy to scan with headings and bullets, but the content is under-specified. The parameter/output lists duplicate schema information without adding context, making it short but not effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify input file formats, output string encoding, or any edge cases. With no output schema, the description should clarify the result but only says 'Content', and the lack of annotations increases the need for explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (file as base64 payload with filename/mimeType, content as string). The description just repeats 'File' and 'Content', adding no extra meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates a file-to-string conversion, but it's essentially the tool's title restated. It does not elaborate on the conversion process or what kind of string is produced, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like tool_file_to_base64 through its description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters and outputs, with no context about preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and outputs; it does not mention side effects of HTTP requests (e.g., POST/PUT may modify remote resources), authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or potentially destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and organized with clear 'Parameters' and 'Outputs' sections. Every line is necessary, but the brevity also reflects under-specification rather than efficient summarization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and only a parameter list, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., send an HTTP request), what the response represents, or any error or side-effect behavior. The description should compensate for the lack of structured metadata but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description separates parameters into 'Parameters' and 'Outputs', clarifying that response and status are outputs, while the input schema lists all six properties flatly without distinction. This adds meaningful structure beyond the schema. However, it does not explain expected formats (e.g., how headers are serialized, valid methods).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with '[dev] HTTP Tester', which simply restates the tool's name without specifying an action or resource relationship. The parameter list hints at functionality, but the core purpose statement is tautological, not a clear description like 'Sends HTTP requests and returns the response'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what contexts it is appropriate for, or how it differs from alternatives. The '[dev]' prefix hints at development use but is not an explicit usage guideline or exclusion criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and outputs, with no mention of error handling for invalid JSON, whether sortKeys reorders keys, whether indent is spaces, or how minified and formatted relate. The 'Outputs' section suggests some return behavior but is minimal and potentially conflicting with the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structurally organized into Parameters/Outputs, but it is under-specified. The 'Outputs' section is potentially misleading given the input schema, and the parameter list adds little beyond the schema. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple formatting tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, error behavior, input constraints, and clear input/output relationships. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats parameter names and types without adding semantic meaning, such as clarifying that 'data' must be a JSON string or how 'indent' interacts with 'minified'. The description also lists 'formatted' and 'minified' as outputs even though they appear in the input schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is more of a parameter/output list than a clear functional statement. The verb 'format' appears only in the tool name/title, not explicitly in the description ('[data] JSON Format'). However, the combination of data, indent, sortKeys and formatted/minified outputs makes the tool's purpose inferable as JSON formatting, though it does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like tool_json_stringify or tool_json_parse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name and parameter list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only lists parameters and outputs without explaining behavior. It does not state whether the tool returns a new file or modifies in place, what transformations are applied, or what 'info' contains, and it confusingly lists 'info' as an output while the input schema includes it as a property.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured as a parameter/output list, which is easy to scan. However, the section headers and duplicate information from the schema, along with the placement of 'info' under outputs, introduce minor structural confusion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested file parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain return semantics and parameter constraints. It merely lists 'file' and 'info' as outputs without detail, and does not describe valid ranges for numeric parameters or expected behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already specifies each parameter with descriptions, and the description largely mirrors this information. The only additional detail is labeling 'info' as 'json' and 'file' as 'bytes', but this adds minimal value and creates inconsistency by listing 'info' under outputs rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as an 'Image Editor' and lists parameters like brightness, contrast, saturation, and grayscale, which imply image adjustment functionality. However, it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does with these parameters, and the output section introduces 'info' without clear purpose, making the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_image_compress or tool_exif_viewer. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral hint is '[viewer]', implying a read-only display, but there is no disclosure of how the content is rendered, whether it truncates large strings, or what the tool returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the tool name and '[viewer]' prefix. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but does not make the description bloated. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should at minimum state what the tool returns or how the preview is presented. It currently only names the tool, leaving the agent to guess its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description repeats the same parameter information verbatim ('content (string): Content'), adding no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description labels the tool as 'String Preview' with a '[viewer]' prefix, indicating it previews string content. However, it lacks a specific verb phrase describing what the preview does (e.g., 'Displays the content in a formatted viewer'), and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tool_string or tool_json_preview beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, 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?
The description claims the output is 'file (bytes)' while the input schema defines 'file' as an object with base64 fields, creating a mismatch. With no annotations, the description fails to accurately disclose the output behavior and also omits the 'file' input parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with headings, but the '[data]' prefix and redundant parameter list add little value. It is adequately concise but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object and no output schema, yet the description provides no clarification about the file object structure or the optional file input, leaving the tool's actual behavior ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has full descriptions for content and filename, but the description omits the 'file' parameter listed in the schema and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's terse descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates the tool converts a string to a file, listing content and filename as inputs. It distinguishes from sibling tool_file_to_string, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. The name implies usage, but there is no direct comparison with sibling tools like tool_base64_to_file or tool_file_to_string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, that it only reads metadata without modifying the file, or any constraints like file size limits or supported formats. The output is only labeled 'EXIF Data', with no detail on structure. This is minimal and 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses a clear list format for parameters and outputs. Every line contributes to specifying how to call the tool. It is not overly verbose, though the title and parameter list could be more integrated. The structure is easy to parse programmatically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only says the output is 'exif (json): EXIF Data' without describing the JSON structure or what fields will be present. The purpose of the 'category' parameter is not explained, and there is no mention that the file must be an image. This is a notable gap for a tool with a nested input object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description actively misrepresents the file parameter as 'bytes', while the schema defines it as a nested object with base64, filename, and mimeType. This contradiction can mislead an agent into passing raw bytes instead of the required base64 object. The category parameter description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the exif output is not a true input parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'EXIF Viewer' with '[image]' prefix clearly indicates the tool views EXIF metadata from an image file. It is a noun-phrase title rather than an explicit verb phrase, but the purpose is unambiguous given the parameter/output listing. No sibling tool is an EXIF viewer, so differentiation isn't needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool or what alternatives exist. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the file needing to be an image, nor does it explain the role of 'category'. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists inputs and the 'valid' output, but does not mention supported algorithms, how HMAC comparison is performed, input encoding expectations, or error behavior. This is minimal and repeats schema content rather than adding meaningful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the [crypto] category and purpose. The parameter list duplicates schema information, but the overall length is appropriate for a simple tool and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's cryptographic nature, the absence of annotations and output schema makes the description underspecified. It omits crucial details like supported algorithm names, default behavior, required fields, and how the expected HMAC is encoded or compared. The schema's inclusion of 'valid' as an input property adds further ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds no new details beyond what the schema already provides. It introduces confusion by listing 'valid' under Outputs while the input schema includes 'valid' as a property, making it ambiguous whether 'valid' is an input or output parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates an HMAC verification operation through its title 'HMAC Verify' and the listed expectedHmac, data, key, and algorithm parameters, with a boolean 'valid' result. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like tool_hmac by the explicit 'Verify' action and output semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_hmac or tool_hash_verify. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists inputs and outputs without explaining how the conversion works, what outputFormat values are allowed, or any side effects/constraints. It also inconsistently describes 'file' as bytes while the schema defines it as an object, adding confusion rather than clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structurally clear, with a title, parameter list, and output list. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the content is mostly duplicated schema labels. Still, it is appropriately concise for a simple utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not explain what outputFormat options exist, whether both base64 and dataUri are always returned, how images are validated, or the relationship between the file object and the top-level base64/dataUri properties. The confusing schema (with base64/dataUri as inputs) is not clarified, leaving the agent with unresolved questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are merely labels ('File', 'Output', 'Base64', 'Data URI') and add no meaning. The description claims 'file (bytes)' which contradicts the schema's object type, misleading the agent. High schema coverage is offset by the lack of semantic detail and the incorrect type hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title '[image] Image to Base64' clearly conveys that the tool converts an image to a Base64 representation. The verb is implied ('convert'), but it distinguishes the resource (image) from generic file tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tool_file_to_base64.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention image-specific handling, output format choices, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it splits into parts without explaining the output format, image requirements, grid interpretation, or side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified). No edge cases, limitations, or error behavior are mentioned, so the agent lacks essential 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It lists parameters and output without any explanatory prose, making it a minimal placeholder rather than a well-structured description. It is not bloated, but it also does not earn its place by adding value beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for completeness. It fails to explain how rows and cols map to the output 'parts', what format the parts take, or any constraints (e.g., image types, maximum grid size). An agent would struggle to correctly configure inputs or interpret results based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Rows', 'Cols'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond repeating parameter names, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail. Baselines at 3 due to high coverage, but no added value is present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates 'Meme Splitter' and lists parameters (file, rows, cols) and output (parts), which clearly implies splitting an image into a grid of sub-images. No explicit verb phrase like 'split an image', but the tool name and parameter list make the core purpose evident. It does not strongly distinguish from sibling image tools, but the 'meme' prefix gives specific context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It is purely a parameter and output listing with no contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'inputs and optional config overrides' but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous. This is a significant gap for a generic execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the basic action and the two key parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It does not explain what toolType refers to, where to find valid types, what inputs/config overrides mean in practice, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools provide some context but do not compensate for the missing critical usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; it merely rephrases 'inputs' and 'config' without explaining how they relate to toolType or what values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute') and the resource ('a tool by type'), which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_workflow or the specific tool_* executors, so it misses the explicit distinction that would earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say whether to use this generic dispatcher instead of calling a specific tool_* function directly, nor does it mention list_tools as a way to discover valid toolType values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'topological order,' but omits critical behaviors such as how data flows through edges, what happens on cycles or errors, whether it mutates state, and what the return value is. This is insufficient for a tool that orchestrates other tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a complex nested schema and no output schema, the description does not explain how nodes reference tools, how ports map data, or what the result of execution looks like. It is under-specified for the complexity of the tool, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as both properties have descriptions ('Workflow nodes' and 'Connections between node ports'), so the schema carries the baseline. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond that, simply echoing nodes and edges. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool runs a connected workflow of tools in topological order, distinguishing it from individual tool-calling siblings. It specifies the action (run), resource (workflow of tools), and scope (nodes + edges, topological order). However, it does not fully elaborate on what 'connected' entails, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_tool. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists inputs and outputs without explaining how fromBase is interpreted (e.g., numeric string '2' vs. named base 'binary'), what happens on invalid input, or whether all four outputs are always returned. No error handling or edge-case behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the tool's purpose and then listing parameters and outputs in a clean format. It is not verbose, and every section serves a purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are somewhat redundant with the schema, which slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context. It lists the outputs but fails to explain how to specify the input base, what base 'value' is assumed to be if fromBase is omitted, or any constraints. This is essential for a conversion tool and the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Input Base') without adding any additional semantic meaning about allowed values, formats, or relationships between parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's minimal descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a Base Converter and lists the output formats (binary, octal, decimal, hex). This indicates it converts between number bases, distinguishing it from sibling converter tools like tool_temperature_converter or tool_currency. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'converts', which would make the purpose even clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what input formats are accepted for 'value' and 'fromBase', or any mention of alternatives. The description provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists inputs and outputs, omitting any details about supported image formats, error behaviors, or the nature of the decoded data. For a decode 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with Parameters and Outputs sections, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content. It earns its place though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has a nested file parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the decoded output is and any constraints (e.g., image format). It only states 'data (string): Data', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (including a nested file payload with base64, filename, and mimeType), so the description adds no value beyond restating 'file (bytes)'. The description also omits the 'data' input property that appears in the schema, creating potential confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly conveys that the tool decodes QR codes, distinguishing it from the sibling tool_qrcode which likely generates them. However, the description is just the phrase 'QRCode Decode' with a parameter list, not a full sentence, but still understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when you have an image file and need its embedded text. 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only lists outputs without explaining whether all are returned together, edge-case handling, or the mismatch with the input schema. The schema lists output names as input properties, and the description does not clarify this discrepancy, leaving the agent uncertain about the actual API contract.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a heading, parameter list, and output list. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, though the '[text]' placeholder is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description provides core input/output info. However, it leaves the schema ambiguity unresolved and does not specify return behavior or prerequisites. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds essential meaning by marking 'text' as the sole input and the rest as outputs, which the input schema fails to distinguish. This clarifies the intended use despite the schema's ambiguous listing. However, it does not elaborate on text constraints or formatting details beyond the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Case Converter' and lists the input parameter (text) and the output variants (upper, lower, title, camel, snake, kebab), clearly indicating it converts text to multiple case formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling converter tools, though it could be more explicit with a sentence like 'Converts text to different case formats.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, limitations, or exclusions. The description simply presents the tool without contextualizing its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the UUID is randomly generated, how the version parameter is used, what effect uppercase and withHyphens have beyond their names, or any default behaviors. The output is listed but not described in terms of format or guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear structure: utility name, parameter list, and output list. Every line provides necessary information without waste. The format makes it easy to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple UUID generator, the description covers the parameters and output, but it omits important context such as what version values are valid, whether hyphens are present by default, and any side effects or restrictions. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail is needed for full contextual completeness, though the tool's simplicity keeps the gap modest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'Version', 'Uppercase'). The description adds some value by clearly categorizing uuid as an output rather than an input parameter, which is ambiguous in the schema. However, it does not enrich the meaning of version, uppercase, or withHyphens beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a UUID utility, and the listed parameters and output make it evident that it generates a UUID. The purpose is specific to the UUID resource, but it doesn't explicitly state an action verb like 'generate' or 'create'. It distinguishes itself from sibling utility tools by focusing solely on UUIDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for when a UUID is needed, what versions are available, or when to prefer other tools like tool_hash or tool_crypto. The description only lists parameters and output, so usage context is entirely implied.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the input/output relationship (text in, stats out) but does not explain counting definitions, edge cases (e.g., empty text), encoding for bytes, or locale sensitivity. This is useful but incomplete context 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized with 'Parameters' and 'Outputs' sections. It earns its place, though the opening line '[text] Text Stats' is slightly redundant and the repeated single-word descriptions (e.g., 'Characters') add minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the main input and outputs. However, it lacks details on how counts are defined, how bytes are measured, and what edge cases behave (e.g., empty or whitespace-only input). The confusing schema is partially mitigated, but not fully resolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists all seven metrics as properties, which would be confusing to an agent. The description explicitly states that only 'text' is a parameter and the rest are outputs, adding crucial disambiguation. However, it does not describe text format constraints or size limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as computing text statistics, listing six specific output metrics (characters, words, lines, sentences, paragraphs, bytes). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' and does not compare against sibling tools, the output list makes 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state use cases, limitations, or exclusions, making the agent infer usage solely from the name and output list. No 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or how it handles invalid input. It only lists inputs/outputs without elaborating on behavior beyond the calculation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-structured: a label, then clear lists of parameters and outputs. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple utility tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies the required inputs and expected outputs. It could go further by explaining category values (e.g., 'underweight', 'normal'), but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial semantics by distinguishing parameters (weight, height) from outputs (bmi, category). This prevents an agent from mistakenly passing bmi and category as inputs, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a BMI utility and lists weight and height as inputs with BMI and category as outputs. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate', the parameter/output structure makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the parameter and output lists—an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions, so it provides only implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input and output format but does not mention error handling for invalid YAML, formatting of the output JSON, or whether this is a pure read-only transformation. The basic conversion behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and structured with labeled parameters and outputs. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant text. The leading '[data]' is slightly unexplained but does not detract significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description gives the essential input and output, but it lacks examples, clarifications about the expected YAML format, and behavior on malformed input. Without an output schema, a bit more context about the returned JSON structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'yaml' and 'json' parameters. The description merely repeats 'yaml (string): YAML' and 'json (json): JSON' without adding any additional semantics, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'YAML to JSON' with a specific conversion direction and identifies the output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_json_to_yaml and tool_json_format. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tool_json_to_yaml or tool_json_parse. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.
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, and the description only states the output type (yaml string). It does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as handling of invalid JSON, formatting options, or key ordering. For a simple conversion tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and a structured list of parameters and outputs. Every line serves a functional purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple JSON-to-YAML converter, the description covers the essential input and output structure. It lacks details on error handling and any conversion nuances, but the simplicity and presence of the schema make the tool adequately complete for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description merely repeats the schema's parameter names and types without adding extra meaning. The schema already defines 'json' and 'yaml' properties, so the description adds no new semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the conversion from JSON to YAML with a specific verb/action and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tool_yaml_to_json by explicitly naming the direction of conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool tool_yaml_to_json exists but is not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get detailed schema and description' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, which adequately signals no side effects. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error cases, but for a simple metadata getter this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it concise and well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter introspection tool, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not specify return format or error handling, but these are not critical for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter toolType with examples, and the description only reinforces 'specific tool' without adding additional semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('detailed schema and description for a specific tool'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tools and execute_tool by focusing on retrieving metadata for a single tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a specific tool' implies this is for targeted lookups, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_tools or execute_tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic behavior (listing tools) but does not mention whether it is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, inclusion of hidden tools). Since it is a simple list operation, some of this may be inferred, but the lack of detail and absence of annotations keeps it at a mid-range score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and the optional filter. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every word earns its place. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It does not specify the exact return structure, but for a listing tool, 'List all available tools' implies a list of tool identifiers or names. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return format could be helpful, but it is not a significant gap. Overall, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a complete description for the 'category' parameter ('Filter by tool category') with a defined enum and optional requirement. The description adds only the word 'optionally', which is already implied by the schema's required: false. Thus, the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all available tools from tool-website, optionally filtered by category'. It uses a specific verb 'List' with a resource ('all available tools'), and the optional filter adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool_schema or execute_tool, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context: this tool is used to list tools, with an optional category filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is straightforward for a discovery tool. Since it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, it doesn't earn a 5, but the clear functionality warrants a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/maple-awa/tool-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server