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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find by id' and does not disclose return format, error behavior, permission implications, or that the operation is a read-only lookup. It is minimally transparent but lacks meaningful 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.

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and identifying scope. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices some useful context for brevity.

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

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

For a two-parameter tool with a fixed enum and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer that providing a member_id and the find_member_details operation will perform the lookup. However, it omits return-value expectations and alternative-tool routing, leaving some gaps in context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'by id' maps to member_id, but member_id is already documented as 'member id' and operation is documented as 'The operation to perform'. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('dooray account members') with a filter ('by id'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling dooray_account_members, but the singular phrasing and id-based lookup imply a detail lookup versus a list operation.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus dooray_account_members or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the operation enum and tool names.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'find' signals a non-mutating lookup and the search criteria are stated. It does not disclose output shape, exact versus partial matching, or authorization expectations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to purpose and usage, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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

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 must compensate by explaining the result and invocation context. It does not mention the required operation value ('find_member_id'), what the tool returns, or how multiple matches are handled, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds limited value by tying the member_name and user_code parameters to the 'by name or userCode' search intent, but it does not add format, matching, or optionality details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('find'), a concrete resource ('dooray account members'), and a clear lookup criterion ('by name or userCode'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like dooray_account_member by framing it as a search by name or user code rather than a direct member operation.

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

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

The phrase 'by name or userCode' implies the tool should be used when locating members by those identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name the alternative to use when other criteria, such as member ID, are available.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and return behavior. 'Find' weakly implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state whether this mutates anything, requires permissions, returns a list, or could fail.

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

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

The description is short with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than tightly informative. It lacks structure that would make the tool's behavior and output immediately scannable for an agent.

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

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

For an operation with one fixed enum value, the description is minimally viable, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe what a successful response contains. An agent would have to guess whether the tool returns all calendars or some filtered subset.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter is an enum with description 'The operation to perform'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a verb and a resource ('find dooray calendars'), which points to the calendar collection and distinguishes it from calendar event tools at a noun level. However, 'find' is vague—it does not say whether this lists all calendars, searches, or retrieves a single calendar—so the purpose is only partially clear.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of siblings such as dooray_calendar_events or dooray_calendar_post_event. The context in which find_calendars should be preferred is left entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'find'. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what the response shape is, how time boundaries are handled, or whether recurring events or attendee information are included.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It contains a single phrase and omits important context about required operation, expected output, and selection criteria, which should have been included in a tool description.

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

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 an enum operation parameter, the description should explain what the agent can expect and when to invoke it. It provides none of that, leaving an agent to infer behavior almost entirely from the schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents timeMin, timeMax, calendars, and operation. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which keeps this at the baseline for schemas that already carry the explanatory load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('dooray events of calendars'), making the core read-oriented purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dooray_calendar_calendars or dooray_calendar_post_event, but the word 'events' and 'calendars' provide enough directional clarity.

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

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 over alternatives, such as dooray_calendar_calendars for listing calendars or dooray_calendar_post_event for creating events. The description also does not mention the time range requirement or that this is the read/search path for calendar events.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'register' without explaining mutating effects, confirmation requirements, defaults, validation behavior, or failure modes. The confirm parameter in the schema covers the write gate, but the description itself does not add 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.

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrasing 'dooray events' is slightly awkward and no structural differentiation is attempted.

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

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

For a tool with 15 parameters, recurrence options, a confirmation gate, and no output schema, a six-word description is not complete enough. It does not explain calendar selection, how recurrence fields interact, or what happens after creation, leaving the agent to infer important contextual behavior.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it does not harmfully omit anything given the schema's completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('register') and a clear resource ('dooray events on a calendar'), making it plain that this tool creates calendar events. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dooray_calendar_events, so it stops 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.

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for creating/registering calendar events, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or 'use X instead' direction is provided.

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

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 disclosing side effects. It only says 'send message' and does not mention that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, permission implications, or what happens after the message is sent. The confirm parameter in the schema reveals the write/confirmation behavior, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse. It is concise, though it is so terse that it lacks helpful context, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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

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

For a simple send-message tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no mention of the expected result, delivery behavior, or when to prefer this tool over sibling messaging/post tools, so completeness is only adequate.

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

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

The input schema fully describes all four parameters, including 'confirm' as a required boolean gate and 'operation' as an enum. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('send message') and the target resource ('dooray messenger'), so an agent can understand the basic function. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as dooray_post_log_create or dooray_posts, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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

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 the sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description only names the action and target, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that auth is forwarded only to the configured API origin and the HTTPS file-api.dooray.com service (not arbitrary redirects), that output lands in a temporary directory, what the success result contains, and — critically — that transient fetch failures must not be reported as permission denials and terminal 403/404 responses are required before claiming a file is forbidden or missing.

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

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place — auth routing, usage scope, sibling disambiguation, output contents, and error-handling rules are all necessary given the tool's complexity. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, though the error-handling tail is somewhat verbose and could be tightened.

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

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

For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, security-sensitive redirect behavior, success output fields, parameter consistency requirements, transport-failure handling, and the exact conditions under which an error should be reported. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational nuance beyond the schema by insisting that projectId and postId be the 'same verified' values from the matching post, tying parameter consistency to correct error interpretation, and clarifying that fileId covers both fileIdList entries and regular attachment IDs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Download a Dooray post file by fileId through authenticated redirects to a local temporary directory.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling dooray_post_files endpoint by stating that this tool is a direct download and that the other endpoint is 'not a prerequisite' and has no bearing on success or failure.

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

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

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for every ID from the matching dooray_posts.fileIdList, including inline body images, with the same verified projectId and postId; it also supports regular attachment file IDs.' It also provides an exclusion/alternative clarification by explaining when dooray_post_files results should NOT be used to infer anything about this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the endpoint can return an empty result or AUTH_FORBIDDEN_ERROR even when files are accessible, which is a critical non-obvious behavioral trait. This goes well beyond what the input schema or annotations could convey.

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

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the exclusion, and the critical failure-mode warning. The key caveat is front-loaded rather than buried.

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

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

The description covers the essential behavioral caveat and the distinction from sibling tools, making it usable with the schema-covered parameters. It does not describe the exact return format, but for a list operation this is a minor gap given the strong guidance already provided.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond labeling the result scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'List regular attachments only' gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, immediately distinguishing this from dooray_post_file_download and from checking inline body images in dooray_posts.fileIdList. It is not a tautology and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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

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

The description clearly states when not to use this tool, explicitly warns against using it as an availability check, and mentions dooray_post_file_download as the alternative that may still succeed. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find', which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if no matching log is found, or what data is returned. This is minimal disclosure for an operation with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is one concise sentence that states the verb and resource directly without filler or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

The schema fully documents the required parameters and the operation enum, which is good. However, the description provides no information about return values, error behavior, or how this tool relates to the list/create/update sibling tools, leaving an agent with only the minimum viable information to attempt a call.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters already have basic documentation. The description adds the clarifying context that logId refers to a comment or activity log, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action, 'find', on a specific resource, 'a specific comment or activity log of a Dooray post'. This distinguishes it from sibling create/update tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the plural 'dooray_post_logs' tool.

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

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

The word 'specific' implies this tool is for retrieving one known log rather than listing or creating logs, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent can infer the basic use case from the singular phrasing, but clear routing among siblings is absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'add a comment'. It does not mention that this is a write operation requiring confirm=true, the side effects of the write, or any constraints such as the Markdown-only MIME type. The confirm behavior exists only in the parameter schema, not in the tool description.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified; still, as written, it is concise and easy to parse.

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

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

For a write tool with 5 required parameters, a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. Missing context includes the confirm-required workflow, what operation=create_log means, the Markdown-only constraint, and how this tool relates to post-log viewing or updating. The definition is not complete enough for safe autonomous invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, so most parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds little parameter-level value beyond loosely equating the body to a comment, and it does not clarify the required confirm workflow or the operation enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries most of the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('add') and resource ('a comment to a Dooray post'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dooray_post_log_update, though the create-vs-update distinction is reasonably inferable.

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

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 dooray_post_log_update or dooray_post_logs. The intended use case is only implicit in the verb 'add', providing no decision support for an agent choosing among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'find', implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose pagination, sorting behavior, response shape, or any side effects. There is no contradiction, but the transparency 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.

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

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and immediately communicates the core action, though it offers no additional structural information.

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

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

For a straightforward read/list tool with fully described parameters, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient. However, without an output schema, some indication of return behavior or pagination would improve completeness, and missing usage guidance leaves contextual gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond framing the tool as finding post comments and activity logs, which is acceptable but not additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('find') and names the resource ('comments and activity logs of a Dooray post'). It clearly implies a read/list operation that is distinct from the singular dooray_post_log and the mutating dooray_post_log_create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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

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 alternatives such as dooray_post_log or dooray_post_log_create. The operation enum restricts to 'find_logs', but the description does not explain contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention the required confirmation gate, the fact that existing content will be overwritten, or any side effects. For a write tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it achieves brevity at the cost of omitting useful behavioral context.

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

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

Given that this is a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention the confirmation requirement, the update semantics, or what happens after execution. The schema covers parameter structure, but the broader operational context is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is high (~83%), so the parameters are largely self-documenting. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, except for framing the target as a 'comment or activity log.' This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('update') and a clear resource ('a comment or activity log of a Dooray post'), which is enough to identify the tool's core function. It distinguishes the tool from create/list siblings by the 'update' action, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when updating an existing comment or activity log, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools like dooray_post_log_create. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative-selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly. It discloses pagination behavior, the risk of false negatives when searching the wrong project or only the first page, the fact that the matching post response contains the task body, and the resilient download strategy even in the face of AUTH_FORBIDDEN_ERROR.

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

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

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, URL parsing, pagination strategy, sibling-tool exclusions, and file-download handling. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what the matching response contains (task body, fileIdList) and how to interpret paginated results. It also accounts for edge cases like wrong project IDs, empty file lists, and auth errors, making the tool usable without additional documentation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for projectId by explaining URL forms and legacy discovery, and it clarifies that size can be raised to 100 while paging through results. It does not explain every filter, but the schema already does that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Find Dooray task posts' in specified project ID scopes. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly saying when not to call dooray_post_logs and when to call dooray_post_file_download, so an agent can select it confidently.

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

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

The description gives explicit routing guidance: use dooray_project for legacy URLs, avoid dooray_post_logs unless comments/activity are requested, and call dooray_post_file_download for fileIdList entries even when dooray_post_files is empty or errors. This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond generic advice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses token-based access, the difference between modern and legacy URLs, and an important pagination caveat. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the list/get framing and the practical warnings add substantial transparency beyond a bare schema.

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

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

The description is four sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, URL implications are condensed, and the pagination caveat earns its place. Every sentence contributes new operational guidance.

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

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

For a tool with seven parameters, two operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation decisions: which operation to choose, which parameters are required for each, how to extract identifiers from URLs, and how to paginate safely. It does not mention response shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical than ensuring correct parameter selection and exhaustive search behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining conditional requirement relationships (find_projects needs type/scope/state, find_project needs projectId) and by giving strategic meaning to page and size: exhaust every relevant filter combination to avoid false negatives. This is useful behavioral parameter guidance not present in the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Dooray projects accessible to the token or get one project by ID.' It clearly separates the two operations supported by the tool, find_projects and find_project, and the resource (Dooray projects) is distinct from sibling calendar, messenger, and post tools.

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

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

The description gives explicit operation-selection guidance: find_projects requires type, scope, and state; find_project requires projectId. It also provides URL-based decision rules for choosing between direct lookup and project discovery, plus a strong pagination directive: exhaust page/size filter combinations because one page is not proof of inaccessibility.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and the sole operation value 'get_date_time' reinforces that. However, it does not mention timezone, format, or return-value details, which are useful behavioral traits for a tool with no output schema.

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

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

The description is extremely short with no filler or redundant phrases. It is front-loaded, though the phrase 'time date' could be worded more clearly as 'date/time'.

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

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

For a simple one-operation tool, the description plus fully covered schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, because there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned date/time format or timezone would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the operation parameter is fully documented with an enum and descriptive text. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a get operation on an OS time/date resource, and the sibling tools are all Dooray-related, so this tool is easy to distinguish. The phrasing 'os time date' is slightly awkward, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

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

Usage is implied by the stated purpose: use this tool to retrieve the OS date/time. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, but the sibling set is unrelated, so the alternative-selection risk is low.

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