Freshdesk MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct entities, but there is ambiguity between 'list_solution_folders' (which has an empty description) and the various 'solution_category_folder' tools, and between generic 'get_field_properties' and type-specific field views. The mix of get/view/list/search is mostly clear but occasionally overlapping.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but retrieval verbs are inconsistent: get, view, list, search, and find are used interchangeably (e.g., view_agent vs get_agents, search_companies vs find_company_by_name). This reduces predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 59 tools, this is a very large surface. While the broad Freshdesk domain explains some of the count, it exceeds the 'too many' threshold and could overwhelm an agent with unnecessary choices.
Completeness2/5
Several entities have incomplete lifecycle coverage: no create_contact, create_company, or delete operations for agents, groups, canned responses, solution articles, and other objects. This forces agents into dead ends when attempting standard CRUD workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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 must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Create a ticket.' It does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or expectations such as required fields, authentication, or validation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it does convey the core purpose, it omits essential information, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address any operational details, field expectations, or usage context, leaving the agent with no more insight than the tool name itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. With 9 parameters including 5 required ones (subject, description, source, priority, status), the description provides zero guidance on their meaning or acceptable values, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a ticket in Freshdesk', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket or delete_ticket. However, it lacks any scope or detail to differentiate from create_ticket_reply or create_ticket_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like create_ticket_reply, create_ticket_note, or update_ticket, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the operation. There is no mention of required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or return format, leaving the agent without critical context for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence without fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with a complex parameter. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks the detail needed to be considered a well-rounded description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no additional context about the category_fields structure, expected behavior, or outcome, making it grossly incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a required nested object 'category_fields' with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what fields should be included in category_fields, forcing the agent to guess the structure and required properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a solution category in Freshdesk'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_solution_category_folder or update_solution_category. It lacks additional scope details, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_solution_category_folder or list_solution_categories. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'search' without mentioning return format, pagination, authentication, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could query and return data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as examples or parameter details, so while it is concise, it is also under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the query format and return behavior. It provides none of this, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single `query` parameter with no description, and the description does not clarify its syntax or semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only says 'search for tickets,' leaving the query format entirely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool searches for tickets in Freshdesk, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it is nearly identical to the tool name and does not differentiate from siblings like get_tickets or search_contacts, offering no specifics on scope or search behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tickets or other search tools. The description implies a search use case but provides no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a solution category folder' with no information about side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, return values, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a mutation tool with zero transparency about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing almost the same information as the tool name itself. It is not improperly verbose, but it does not earn its place by adding meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters (one a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no explanation of the update semantics, the structure of folder_fields, or any behavioral details. The agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description itself does not mention either parameter (folder_id or folder_fields). It fails to explain what folder_fields should contain, how folder_id is used, or any format expectations. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a solution category folder in Freshdesk' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (solution category folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_solution_category_folder and view_solution_category_folder via the verb. However, it lacks any specifics about what fields can be updated, making it slightly less informative than a fully explicit purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_solution_category_folder for new folders or view_solution_category_folder for reading. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, so the agent receives no 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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'create'. It does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any consequences, failing to inform the agent about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a bare minimum sentence, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential details while being technically brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain what fields are required in agent_fields, making it impossible for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'agent_fields' is an empty object with no schema-defined properties, and the description provides no additional explanation. Schema coverage is 0%, so the parameter semantics are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('an agent in Freshdesk'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_agent or view_agent. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contexts. The description simply states the action without contextual 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' without explaining required permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing fields. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness is not achieved at the expense of essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is starkly incomplete. It provides no guidance on required fields, examples, or expected behavior, making it nearly impossible 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'ticket_field_fields' is an object, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no explanation of what fields should be included or what the object structure should be. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('ticket field' in Freshdesk). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like view_ticket_field or update_ticket_field because it explicitly says 'create'. However, it lacks any additional scope or context that would make the purpose more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer create over update, or any exclusions. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but there is no information about partial vs. full replacement, required permissions, side effects, or response behavior, making this a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single under-specified sentence. While it is short, it omits crucial details, so it 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (2 parameters, nested object, mutation operation) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what group_fields contains, how updates are applied, or what the return value is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of group_id or group_fields. The nested group_fields object is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a group in Freshdesk, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_group or view_group by explaining what aspects of a group can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when an update is 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' without explaining side effects, required permissions, whether fields are partially or fully replaced, versioning implications, or impact on published content. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is technically concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with a nested object parameter and no other documentation. The brevity does not serve the purpose of clarity; it omits essential information about the tool's usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two parameters including a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the article_fields structure. The description provides none of the needed context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, making it severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond their names. 'article_id' is self-evident, but 'article_fields' is an opaque object with no structure or allowed keys explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, especially given the nested object type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'solution article' in Freshdesk, making the tool's core function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_solution_category' and 'create_solution_article' by naming the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., create_solution_article or update_solution_category) would be more appropriate. The description provides no actionable usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action (update) without revealing permissions, side effects, partial vs. full update behavior, or response format. This is essentially no more informative than the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, as a concise statement it earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. This one-sentence description is wholly inadequate to understand input requirements, expected output, or error conditions, making it incomplete for meaningful use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention either ticket_id or ticket_fields. The agent is given no help understanding what ticket_fields should contain, how ticket_id is used, or the expected structure of the nested object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (a ticket) within the Freshdesk context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like update_ticket_field or update_ticket_conversation, so it lacks clear differentiation beyond 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to other update tools, leaving the agent without situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or the structure of the folder_fields object. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence and no fluff, which is positive. However, it is under-specified, lacking any structured breakdown of parameters or behavior. While brevity is good, the extreme simplicity leaves out necessary information for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, one being a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the folder_fields schema, required fields, or expected outcomes. The tool is essentially undocumented beyond its name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (category_id and folder_fields). It does not explain what folder_fields should contain, how category_id is used, or the relationship between them. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (solution category folder) within Freshdesk. It is specific enough to distinguish from update_solution_category_folder by verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_solution_category or create_solution_article, relying on the tool name for that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the existence of a category or the purpose of a folder. The single sentence merely restates the tool's function without contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'update' without revealing side effects, required permissions, whether existing field configurations are overwritten, or any other operational impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero word waste, making it highly concise. However, its structure is extremely minimal, offering no additional sections or examples that could aid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is dramatically incomplete. It only states the action and resource, failing to provide the agent with enough information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of contact_field_id or the structure of contact_field_fields. It adds no value for parameter understanding, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (contact field) in Freshdesk, distinguishing it from sibling create/view contact field tools. However, it lacks detail on what specific settings can be updated, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_contact or create_contact_field. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to existing field data. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and does not convey necessary information about the tool's operation, making it more of an under-specification than a concise summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented object parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the expected input structure, potential errors, or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the description adds no information about the parameters. ticket_field_fields is an object with no indication of what fields it should contain or their format. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'ticket field', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ticket_field and view_ticket_field. However, it does not elaborate on what updating a ticket field entails, such as modifying its configuration or properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ticket_field or view_ticket_field. It simply states what the tool does without any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the basic action. It does not mention permissions, side effects, validation rules, or what happens on duplicate names. This leaves the agent without critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with a single sentence, but this brevity results from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It omits essential details about the parameter and behavior, so it is not 'appropriately sized'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description provides no additional context about return values, field schema, or integration with other field-management tools. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single required parameter `contact_field_fields` has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it. The parameter is an object expected to contain field configuration, but the agent cannot infer its structure or required keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a contact field in Freshdesk'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ticket_field and update_contact_field. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The description only states the action, so the agent lacks context for choosing between creating vs updating a field or using related field-management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the obvious creation action without mentioning required permissions, validation, side effects, or return behavior. This is a minimal disclosure, better than pure tautology but still lacking context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and object. It earns its place but is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, so not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested article_fields object that is completely unspecified, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full input requirements or expected outcome. It covers only the basic purpose, leaving major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only parameter names (folder_id, article_fields) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about what values are expected, how article_fields should be structured, or the relationship between folder_id and article creation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('solution article') with the system ('Freshdesk'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_solution_article and create_solution_category. However, it lacks scope details such as the required folder or article type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_solution_article or list_solution_articles. The description only states the basic action, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 states 'Get a ticket', implying a read operation with no side effects, but does not explain return format, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., ticket existence). The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words or filler, front-loading the verb and object. It is efficient, though it omits critical details that are penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not clarify that the ticket is retrieved by ID, what the response contains, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_ticket_conversation or view_ticket_summary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the ticket_id parameter at all. The schema defines ticket_id as an integer, but the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to compensate for the lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a ticket in Freshdesk' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a single-ticket retrieval operation. It is distinguished from siblings like 'get_tickets' (plural) and 'search_tickets' by the singular form, though it does not explicitly mention the ticket_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tickets or get_tickets. There is no mention of scenarios where this is the appropriate choice or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List', implying a read-only operation, but omits important behavioral details like pagination, the role of folder_id, and whether it returns all fields or summaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its extreme brevity sacrifices necessary context, so while it is concise, it is not optimally structured for agent understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the folder dependency, expected output, or the relationship to sibling framework tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the folder_id parameter at all. Since the parameter is required, the description should at least indicate that canned responses are scoped by folder, but it provides no such meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('canned responses in Freshdesk'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'view_canned_response' (single item) and 'list_canned_response_folders' (folders), though the phrase 'all' is slightly misleading given the required folder_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as viewing a single canned response or listing folders. The description does not mention any conditions, 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 implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination, return format, or the folder scoping that contradicts the phrase 'all solution articles'. The requirement for folder_id is a key behavior that is omitted, making the tool appear more global than it actually is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, but it is so brief that it misses critical context, slightly reducing its structural value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that folder_id is necessary, what the output format might be, or any prerequisite steps (e.g., listing folders first). This is a minimal but insufficient description for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The sole parameter folder_id is not explained at all; the phrase 'all solution articles' actively conflicts with the fact that a specific folder_id is required, providing misleading parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'solution articles', which identifies the tool's high-level purpose. However, it does not mention that listing is scoped to a specific folder via the required folder_id parameter, which could confuse agents into thinking it lists all articles globally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like view_solution_article or list_solution_folders. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., knowing the folder_id) or when a list operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action 'search' implied by the name and adds no details about return format, pagination, search semantics, or whether it supports partial matches. This is a significant gap for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—one short sentence with no redundancy—but it is under-specified. It achieves brevity at the expense of needed details, making it borderline between effective conciseness and minimalism that lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what results look like, how many companies can be returned, or any edge cases. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more descriptive context is needed for an agent to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required 'query' string with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what the query should contain (e.g., company name, domain, partial string) or how it is used in the search. While 'search for companies' gives a general hint, the parameter semantics are left largely to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for companies in Freshdesk' uses the specific verb 'search' and the resource 'companies', clearly stating the tool's core action. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling tools like find_company_by_name or list_companies, which also relate to company retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_company_by_name or list_companies. There is no context about preferred search scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent gets no 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?
The description only states 'Update', implying a mutation, but discloses no other behavioral traits. With no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the update is partial or full replacement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness, as it omits critical details about parameters and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two parameters, one being a complex object, and no output schema. The description provides only the bare action, lacking any context about return values, field examples, or edge cases, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. agent_fields is an opaque object with no keys or structure described, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden but fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Update' with a specific resource 'agent', which distinctly identifies the operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_agent, view_agent, and search_agents by the action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the agent must already exist, nor does it reference creating or viewing agents as related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details about side effects, permissions, or behavior on missing folders. It merely states 'update', which implies modification but does not disclose any potential risks, reversibility, or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, and usage guidance, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It does not mention folder_id or name, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for meaning. The description adds no value beyond the structured field definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (canned response folder), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or list. However, it does not explicitly mention that the update is limited to the folder name, though the schema shows only 'name' as the updatable field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_canned_response_folder or list_canned_response_folders. The description simply states the action without providing context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update a contact,' which merely restates the tool's name. It does not mention partial vs. full update semantics, required permissions, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence, so it is structurally acceptable. However, it is under-specified—it provides only the bare minimum of information and lacks any detail that would aid the agent, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, informative statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has two parameters with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how the contact_fields object should be formatted, what the response contains, or any constraints, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in a complex domain like Freshdesk.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The description fails to explain the structure or purpose of contact_fields, which is a nested object and likely critical for correct usage. This is a total gap in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a contact in Freshdesk, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket, update_agent, and update_contact_field, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or scenarios where read tools like get_contact or search_contacts should be used first. There is no exclusionary 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool views an agent, omitting details about return format, existence checks, authorization requirements, or whether it is read-only beyond the implied meaning of 'view'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from listing agents, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines agent_id as an integer without any description, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what agent_id refers to or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'View an agent in Freshdesk' clearly identifies the action (view) and resource (agent), distinguishing it from siblings like create_agent, update_agent, and delete_agent. However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves a single agent by ID, though the required agent_id parameter makes this implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agents (which likely lists agents) or search_agents. The description offers no context for selection or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only repeats the name and does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though the verb 'view' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise. It lacks structure but is appropriately brief for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal information. It does not explain what fields are returned, how to handle a missing group, or any necessary permissions or context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines only a required integer group_id, but with 0% schema description coverage, neither the schema nor the description explains what group_id refers to or how to obtain it. The description adds no semantic value for the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('view') and resource ('a group'), making it obvious that this tool retrieves a single group. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_groups by the singular scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of list_groups or other group-related tools. The description only states what it does, giving no context on the appropriate scenario for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or required field structure. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, non-wasteful sentence, which is structurally concise. However, it omits essential parameter and context information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented object parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what group_fields must contain or what the outcome of a successful creation is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one object parameter 'group_fields' with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of what fields should be included in the group_fields object, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a group in Freshdesk' clearly states the action (create) and resource (group), and the platform context distinguishes it from siblings like update_group and list_groups. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_group or create_agent. There is no mention of prerequisites, when it should be used, or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not specify what constitutes a 'conversation', whether it includes notes and replies, or the structure of the response. This lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording, making it highly concise. However, it is slightly under-specified, which reduces its effectiveness, but it earns a 4 for its brevity and front-loaded structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context, yet it provides minimal information. It does not explain what a ticket conversation includes, the return format, or any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the ticket_id parameter at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without any additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('ticket conversation'), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_ticket or update_ticket_conversation. However, it is ambiguous whether this returns a single conversation or all conversations for a ticket, and it does not clarify the scope relative to siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ticket or get_tickets. The description does not mention any contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-liner only restates the tool's function without explaining return format, result limits, permission requirements, or how the search matches agents—significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify search scope, return values, or constraints. With many sibling tools in the context, more guidance is needed to avoid misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'query' with no description and 0% coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to guess what the query should contain (e.g., name, email, other attributes). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'agents in Freshdesk', making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agents' (list all agents) or 'view_agent' (retrieve a specific agent), relying on the inherent meaning of 'search'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_agents' or 'view_agent'. It doesn't mention search syntax, query requirements, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses no behavior beyond the obvious – no mention of partial vs. exact matching, which fields are searched, how results are ordered, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or unnecessary details, making it very concise. It sacrifices substance for brevity, but that is more appropriately penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the return format, whether results are paginated, or the underlying search behavior. Given the many sibling contact tools, this lack of context makes the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain what the query should contain (e.g., name, email, phone) or how matching works, adding no value beyond the parameter name already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Search for contacts in Freshdesk' – a clear verb (search) and resource (contacts), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_contacts and get_contact by implying query-based lookup. However, it lacks detail on search scope or matching criteria, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_contacts and get_contact exist, but the description doesn't explain when search_contacts is preferable, nor does it mention any limits, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create a note' without revealing whether the note is private, what permissions are needed, whether it triggers notifications, or the shape of the response. This is minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the verb and object, making the core functionality immediately apparent. There is no redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits any practical context about note behavior, relationship to ticket conversations, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to guess important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'ticket_id' and 'body' are self-explanatory by name, the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., expected format of body, whether body supports HTML). Parameter semantics are largely left to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('a note for a ticket'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tool 'create_ticket_reply', which also creates a comment-like entry on a ticket, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ticket_reply. The description conveys a simple action but does not explain the context, such as whether notes are internal-only, or when a note is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or whether pagination is automatic or requires manual page iteration. The phrase 'pagination support' hints at behavior but leaves key details undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence with no redundant words. The description is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse given the lack of annotations, output schema, and explicit alternatives. It does not mention the output shape, pagination behavior details, or when to use this instead of search_agents/view_agent, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'pagination support' without explaining the page and per_page parameters. While the schema provides names and defaults, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions or clarify their semantics beyond generic naming.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all agents') and resource ('agents in Freshdesk'), which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like view_agent (singular) and search_agents (search). It does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_agents or view_agent. The description only mentions pagination support, which implies listing behavior, but does not state exclusions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a contact' implies a read operation but does not state return format, whether it is read-only, potential errors, or any other behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and front-loaded, appropriate for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still under-specified. It does not clarify that the tool retrieves a single contact by ID, which is important given sibling tools like search_contacts and list_contacts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter contact_id, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource ('Get a contact'), which indicates a fetch operation. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_contacts or search_contacts, so it lacks the specificity of a top-tier purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_contacts or list_contacts. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get properties' implying a read operation, but does not disclose how the field name lookup works, what properties are returned, or potential errors. The phrase 'by name' adds minor context but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though serving as a model of minimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic 'field' term, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which types of fields are supported (ticket, contact, company), nor what 'properties' are included in the response, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented field_name parameter. It only says 'by name', which essentially restates the parameter name. It does not clarify the expected format, case sensitivity, or which field naming convention is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get properties of a specific field by name.' It has a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like view_contact_field or view_ticket_field, which also fetch field properties but are scoped to a specific entity type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool like view_contact_field or view_ticket_field 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but only states 'Update' with no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It effectively communicates the core operation without unnecessary detail, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter, yet the description provides no details about return values, required field structures, or behavioral consequences. It is too minimal to fully guide invocation in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the two parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the 'canned_response_fields' object is completely unspecified, leaving the agent without critical information about its shape or allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a canned response'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_canned_response_folder. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create/view canned response, though the verb does that implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_canned_response or view_canned_response. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or conditions that would warrant an update.
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 must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the basic action. It does not explain whether the summary is overwritten, what happens if the ticket is missing, required permissions, or the response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it under-specifies behavioral details, making it concise but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description carries a heavy burden. It fails to cover return value, edge cases, or usage context, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While ticket_id and body are named, their roles are not explicitly defined (e.g., that body is the new summary text). The agent must infer this from the tool name, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (ticket summary), and the system (Freshdesk). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_ticket (which updates broader ticket fields) and view_ticket_summary (which reads the summary).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this instead of update_ticket or other ticket-related tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a company,' which implies read-only but does not confirm safety, describe return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, with zero wasted words and no redundant rephrasing of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains. It does not mention return fields, result shape, or any additional context. While the tool is simple (one parameter), the lack of return information leaves the agent underinformed about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful information about the company_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (integer, required). The name suggests it identifies the company, but the description does not explicitly connect it to the retrieval action, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'a company in Freshdesk,' clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_company_by_name, but the name 'view_company' and singular 'a company' imply fetching by ID, which is distinct from listing or searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_companies, search_companies, or find_company_by_name. The description gives no context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'View', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as response format, authentication requirements, or potential errors. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it would benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is extremely sparse. It does not mention what the article view returns, whether any permissions are required, or how to handle missing IDs. Given the lack of annotations and schema richness, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'article_id'. There is no explanation of what the ID represents, how it is used, or any format constraints, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'View' and identifies the resource as 'a solution article in Freshdesk'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_solution_articles, create_solution_article, and update_solution_article.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that this is for viewing a single article by ID, nor any distinction from list_solution_articles or view_solution_category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'View' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the response contains, whether special permissions are needed, or any side effects or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence: verb + resource + context. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient for full completeness. It does not describe return values, usage context, or how this tool relates to sibling tools, leaving important gaps for an agent selecting the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter, category_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions this parameter or explains how it should be used. The description adds no meaning beyond the property name and the implicit connection to a category.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'View' and names the resource 'solution category' with context 'in Freshdesk', clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_solution_categories or view_solution_category_folder, but the singular 'a category' implies a single-item retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_solution_categories or view_solution_article. There are no mentions of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'View' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure about error handling, permissions, or response format. This is a minimal signal beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'View a solution category folder in Freshdesk.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Extreme conciseness, although it sacrifices informational depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too bare. It fails to mention what is returned or any prerequisites/error behavior. Given that there is no output schema, the description should have at least indicated what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'folder_id' parameter at all. It only relies on the parameter name and integer type, providing no additional meaning about how to use it or what it references.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('View') and the resource ('solution category folder') in Freshdesk. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_solution_folders' via verb choice ('view' vs 'list') and from 'view_solution_category' by mentioning 'folder'. It lacks explicit mention of retrieval by ID, but the schema makes that clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it retrieves a single folder's details, nor does it contrast with list or update operations. The usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'View a ticket field' and does not mention return format, error behavior, or authorization needs. The read-only nature is implied by the verb but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the caller receives and how this differs from listing fields. It neither describes the return value nor distinguishes it from get_ticket_fields, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes ticket_field_id as a required integer, and the description adds no explanation of how the ID is used or what it refers to. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing semantic details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'View' and identifies the resource as 'a ticket field in Freshdesk', clearly indicating the operation. It is distinct from create/update/list sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_ticket_fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_ticket_fields or other field-related tools. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets a summary, omitting details such as the output format, whether it is read-only, or any required permissions. 'Get' implies retrieval but does not explain what the summary contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the existence of sibling tools for full ticket details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the summary, differentiate from get_ticket, or mention any response format, making it insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the ticket_id parameter beyond mentioning 'a ticket'. It adds no extra semantic value, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's purpose from its name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the summary of a ticket in Freshdesk', clearly stating the action and target. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling get_ticket tool, which may also retrieve ticket information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a summary is preferable to a full ticket view, nor does it reference sibling tools like get_ticket.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'create a canned response' with no detail about required fields, authorization, side effects, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It leaves the agent guessing about the required structure of canned_response_fields and the behavior of the tool. More detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'canned_response_fields' is an untyped object with no schema details or description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of its structure or required fields, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('canned response') in Freshdesk, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_canned_response or list_canned_responses. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_canned_response or create_canned_response_folder. The description does not mention any contexts, 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'List all groups' but does not clarify pagination behavior, result limits, or whether 'all' means across pages or a single page. The presence of page and per_page parameters implies paginated results, but this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose clearly and immediately, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with two optional parameters, the complete lack of parameter descriptions, output schema, and behavioral context makes the description insufficient. It should at least mention pagination and the meaning of page/per_page, especially since no annotations or schema descriptions exist to fill gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not mention page or per_page at all. The agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters control, their semantics (e.g., starting page, page size limits), or acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'groups' in Freshdesk. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_group, view_group, and update_group by indicating a listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as view_group or search tools. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or how the nested category_fields object is processed. This lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Update a solution category in Freshdesk.' It is appropriately sized, containing no filler words or redundant information. The core purpose is front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested object parameter (category_fields) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to structure category_fields or what the response will contain, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (category_id and category_fields) with zero description coverage. The tool description simply says 'Update a solution category' and does not add any meaning to the parameters, failing to explain what category_id refers to or what structure/values category_fields should contain. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'solution category' in Freshdesk, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools such as create_solution_category, view_solution_category, and update_solution_category_folder by specifying the exact resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool (e.g., create_solution_category or update_solution_category_folder) would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 merely states 'View a canned response' without indicating read-only status, potential errors (e.g., not found), or any other behavioral specifics. The verb 'view' implies a read operation, but no explicit transparency is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, conveying the core purpose immediately. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the availability of sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but lacks additional context such as what the response contains or any operational constraints. It is not misleading, but it does not fully inform the agent about expected behavior or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter, 'canned_response_id', and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('View') and resource ('canned response'), making its purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_canned_responses' by the verb 'view', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is concise and accurate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_canned_responses' or 'update_canned_response'. No context about prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, which is already visible in the schema parameters (page, per_page). It doesn't describe return format, rate limits, permissions, or what 'Get tickets' actually returns (e.g., all tickets vs. user-specific). This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and a key feature (pagination) efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still lacks essential context for a list operation. It doesn't mention response structure, pagination limits, or any usage context beyond a bare statement. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't. 'Pagination support' hints at the purpose of page and per_page, but the parameter names and defaults in the schema already convey that. No additional meaning is added by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves tickets from Freshdesk with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_ticket (singular) or search_tickets, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'with pagination support'—suggesting it's for listing tickets in pages. But there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like search_tickets for filtering or get_ticket for a single ticket, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create a reply' without disclosing important behavioral traits like whether the reply is public, triggers email notifications, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but it is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks crucial context such as visibility, notification behavior, and parameter expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While 'ticket_id' and 'body' are self-explanatory in context, there is no added detail about format, constraints, or body requirements beyond the basic schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a reply to a ticket in Freshdesk.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ticket and create_ticket_note, as 'reply' is a distinct action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_ticket_note or update_ticket_conversation. There is no mention of public vs. private communications or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'Delete' but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or what consequences it has on related data. The description adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as possible while still stating the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks warnings about permanence, required permissions, or side effects, which are essential context for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention ticket_id. While the parameter is self-explanatory from the schema, the description adds no extra meaning or context for how the parameter should be sourced or validated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'a ticket', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_ticket or delete_ticket_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as closing or updating a ticket. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommendations are provided; usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It notes pagination support but does not disclose read-only behavior, response shape, rate limits, or any caveats about 'all' (e.g., whether it includes archived companies).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one sentence, with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description covers the essential function and pagination, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return format, any default ordering, and potential limitations, making it only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter names and defaults (page=1, per_page=30) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions pagination support but does not explain semantics like page starting at 1 or limits on per_page, leaving agents without sufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), resource (companies in Freshdesk), and scope (all) with pagination. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like view_company or search_companies, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving the full set of companies, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over search_companies or view_company, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Update' without addressing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what specific aspects of the conversation are updated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sparse and does not convey return behavior, usage context, or any additional details that would help an agent fully understand the tool's operation. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'body' or 'conversation_id' parameters. The 'body' parameter's format or constraints are left ambiguous, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a conversation for a ticket'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_ticket_conversation or create_ticket_reply. It immediately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the function without contextual cues for selection.
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. The verb 'view' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is accurate, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, permissions, side effects) is disclosed. This is minimally sufficient but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loading the verb and resource. There is zero redundancy or fluff; it is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one required parameter and no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what the response will contain. It does not. It also provides no usage context among the large sibling set. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not mention contact_field_id at all, nor how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'view' plus the resource 'contact field', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_contact_fields (which lists all fields) and create/update_contact_field (which mutate). This is a clear and specific purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single field by ID, nor does it reference list_contact_fields for browsing all fields. Sibling tools are not differentiated in usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, without mentioning permissions, uniqueness constraints, or side effects, adding no behavioral insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary detail or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with one parameter, the description is minimal but adequate to understand the basic action. However, it omits details such as whether the folder name must be unique or what the response contains, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists a single 'name' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention it either. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or constraints, though the parameter name is self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (canned response folder), and the system (Freshdesk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_canned_response_folder or list_canned_response_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply restates the tool's function without contextual 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' without explaining side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the ticket when its summary is deleted. This is minimal transparency for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description is minimally viable but still lacks behavioral context. It identifies the action and resource, but without annotations or output schema, it should disclose side effects or confirm the operation's scope. It is adequate but not rich enough for a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the ticket_id parameter beyond the schema's title. It does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining the parameter's format, constraints, or relationship to the target ticket.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('the summary of a ticket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like view_ticket_summary, update_ticket_summary, and delete_ticket. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_ticket or update_ticket_summary. The description does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, or scenarios where deletion of a summary is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 states a get operation but provides no detail on safety, pagination, or return behavior. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description still lacks information about what the response contains or how it relates to sibling field tools. It is adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4 and the description doesn't need to add anything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets ticket fields from Freshdesk, using a specific verb and resource. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like view_ticket_field or get_field_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_contact_fields or view_ticket_field. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose whether the lookup is exact, case-sensitive, returns multiple results, or what happens if no company is found. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short sentence conveys the entire purpose efficiently. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely adequate. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but the action 'Find a company' implies returning the matching company. Given the tool's simplicity, the gap is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly references the parameter ('by name'), giving meaning to the 'name' property beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description fully clarifies the single parameter's role as the lookup key.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('a company by name in Freshdesk'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_companies (lists all) or search_companies (likely broader search). This is a clear, specific purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_companies or view_company. There is no mention of exact-match semantics, case sensitivity, or when this tool is preferred over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states pagination support, which is a key behavior, but does not clarify return format, ordering, or whether soft-deleted contacts are included. For a simple read tool, this is some disclosure but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and pagination aspect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details such as response structure (no output schema), maximum per_page allowed, or any filtering caveats. It is not misleading but leaves room for misinterpretation in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero descriptions for 'page' and 'per_page', and the description only says 'with pagination support' without defining these parameters. This does not sufficiently compensate for the 0% schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of the parameters from defaults and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all contacts in Freshdesk'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_contacts' (search vs. list) and 'get_contact' (single vs. all). It also indicates pagination scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List all contacts' implies a use case for bulk enumeration, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_contacts'. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so the usage is only implicitly communicated.
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 is the sole source of behavioral context. It conveys that this is a read-only list operation, but does not disclose potential details like pagination, sorting, access permissions, or whether archived folders are included. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although this is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description only restates the purpose. It does not clarify what the response contains, whether 'all' has any restrictions, or how this integrates with other tools. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (canned response folders), matching the tool name exactly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_canned_responses or view_canned_response_folder by specifically targeting folders as the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name is clear, the description lacks any context about use cases, trade-offs, or exclusions relative to other canned response or folder tools.
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?
Without annotations, the description must carry the burden. It honestly states this is a list (read-only) operation with scope 'all', but provides no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or whether it includes only custom fields. For a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds meaning: action, resource, scope, and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what will happen. It could benefit from specifying the return structure, but 'list all company fields' is reasonably complete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete. The description correctly adds no parameter information; the default baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (company fields), and the scope (all) within Freshdesk. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_companies and list_contact_fields by specifying 'company fields'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it over alternatives such as list_contact_fields or get_ticket_fields, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The verb 'List' implicitly communicates a read-only, non-destructive action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential details like pagination, response structure, or whether built-in fields are included, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence (7 words) that fully conveys the action and scope without redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the action ('List'), the resource ('contact fields'), and the scope ('all'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all contact fields', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'view_contact_field' (singular) and create/update operations. The scope 'all' is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'view_contact_field' (for a single field) or 'get_field_properties'. The description lacks any contextual or alternative tool references, so the agent has no criteria for selection beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description's use of 'list' conveys a read-only behavior. It neither describes side effects nor permissions, but for a zero-parameter read operation, this is sufficient. It does not add details about pagination or filtering, but none are needed given the 'all' qualifier.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose and behavior. It is complete for a trivial list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'solution categories' in Freshdesk, with 'all' indicating scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_solution_articles or view_solution_category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing the full list of solution categories, and there are no alternative exclusions. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear for a simple list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

[![freshdesk_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/freshdesk_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/freshdesk_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![freshdesk_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/freshdesk_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/freshdesk_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikeysrecipes/freshdesk_mcp'

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