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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the auth requirement and parameter types. It does not explain whether the user must already exist, side effects of duplicates, or confirmation responses, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and IAM version. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or unnecessary words.

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 tool has no output schema and a nested user parameter. The description does not explain the response or constraints on the user object (e.g., required fields). Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the level-type values and level-id UUID nature, so 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 description clearly states the action ('Add a user to an organisational level') and specifies the IAM version and write operation. It distinguishes from siblings like create_iam_group and list_iam_users by focusing on user addition at a level.

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 explains the required token scopes and the meaning of level-type and level-id parameters. It provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancellation only applies to subtasks not started, and that already-deleted data is not restored. It lists required environment variable and scopes. However, it does not mention behavior for completed deletions or error responses.

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 two sentences: first clearly states the action, second adds nuance and requirements. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 cancellation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints (in progress/queued, no restore), prerequisites (env var, scopes). It omits details on return values or error handling, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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% (one parameter, taskId, described as 'The task ID returned by execute_record_deletion.'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so 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 description clearly states the action: cancel a Grail record deletion process that is in progress or queued. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_record_deletion and get_record_deletion_status by specifying the scope of cancellation and noting that already-deleted data is not restored.

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 includes prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true) and required scopes. It implicitly suggests usage when a deletion task is in progress or queued, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The reference to the task ID from execute_record_deletion provides context.

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 full burden. It describes the comparative nature and what outputs to expect in each scenario. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it; however, the description is transparent about the tool's actions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently explains the two usage modes.

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 the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both invocation contexts and their expected results, leaving no 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description adds significant meaning by explaining the dual behavior (overview vs deep-diff). This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 tool compares committed OpenAPI specs against live tenant catalog, and distinguishes two modes: without args for catalog-level overview, with spec stem for deep-diff operations. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like check_settings_schema_drift.

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 explicitly tells when to use each mode (with or without the spec parameter). While it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and sufficient for this simple 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?

No annotations exist, so the description must stand alone. It explains the comparison and optional diff, but does not disclose output format, side effects (assumed read-only), or any authorization or rate limit implications. The behavioral description is adequate 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.

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

The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional feature. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main function and optional parameter. However, without an output schema, additional detail on the result format would enhance 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?

The only parameter (schemaId) is already well-described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description reiterates the optional diff purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic 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 clearly states the tool compares committed settings-schema versions against the live tenant, with an optional structural key-path diff for a specific schemaId. The verb 'compare' and resource 'settings-schema versions' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_settings_schema' (retrieve) and 'validate_settings_object' (validate an object).

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 is for drift detection but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_settings_schema' or 'validate_against_live_schema'. No guidance on prerequisites or context 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the tool is 'safe, read-only', which is good, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or prerequisites. More information would be helpful but the core safety is stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase is meaningful, with no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the converted DQL string). It also omits details on error conditions or limitations. For a conversion tool, this information is important and 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra information beyond the schema for the parameters; the schema itself explains the query parameter with an example. Thus no additional value 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 clearly states the action ('Convert a legacy LQL matcher expression to a DQL equivalent') and the resource (LQL to DQL). It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool performs this conversion, and provides specific context ('migrating older pipeline routing conditions').

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when migrating older pipeline routing conditions'). It does not list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), content type (multipart/form-data), serialization details for 'content', and the required configuration flag. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or authentication beyond the config requirement, but the provided details add significant transparency.

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 compact (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema fields.

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 the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: creation flow, parameter constraints, and configuration prerequisite. It could mention the expected response (e.g., returns dashboard ID or object), but the provided information is sufficient 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.

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical meaning: it clarifies that 'content' and 'contentPath' are mutually exclusive, explains how 'content' is serialized and sent in the multipart request, and emphasizes the 'not both' constraint. This goes well beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a new dashboard (WRITE)' and specifies it sends a multipart/form-data POST per the Document Service spec. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dashboard, update_dashboard, and delete_dashboard via the verb 'Create' and the explicit write indication.

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 provides explicit guidelines: content must be provided inline via 'content' OR from a file via 'contentPath' (not both), and 'Requires DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true'. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_dashboard, but the clear write constraint and mutual exclusivity offer solid usage 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 present, so the description carries full burden. It only volunteers 'WRITE' which is obvious from the name. No details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on creation (e.g., idempotency, validation). This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient, though it sacrifices nuance. It could benefit from a bit more structure, but for a single-sentence definition, it earns its place.

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 the lack of annotations and an open-ended object parameter, the description is markedly incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'platform notification v2' entails, what the required fields are, or what the response looks like (no output schema). An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, but the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The parameter description is generic ('Pass all required fields per the notification spec.'), offering no concrete guidance on the object structure. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and this description does not exceed 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 clearly states the action (Create) and the resource (event-notification), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'WRITE, platform notification v2'. The verb and resource are specific and distinct from related tools like create_self_notification or get_event_notification.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions. With many notification-related siblings, the lack of usage context makes selection harder for an AI agent.

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 cover behavioral traits. It notes it's a WRITE operation and specifies minimum fields, but omits success/failure behavior, idempotency, or authorization requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first states the purpose, the second adds a critical requirement.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to mention return values (e.g., the created config ID) or error conditions. For a create operation, this is a significant gap.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example for 'scope' (HOST-XXXX) and reiterates the minimum fields, providing slight additional clarity over 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'monitoring configuration for an Extension 2.0', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, list, update, and delete.

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 usage for creating a new monitoring configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a WRITE operation and lists required permissions, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, 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.

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently includes purpose, operation type, and permissions. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and a complex nested parameter, the description covers core purpose and permissions but lacks examples, return value information, or behavior on conflicts.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only provides high-level context about permissions.

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 'Create a feature in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_feature_flag' and 'create_feature_project' by focusing on 'feature'.

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?

It mentions required permissions (scope and DT_ENABLE_WRITES) which guides when this tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion 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 must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation and requires specific permissions, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., idempotency, constraints) or the return value. Some behavioral context is provided but insufficient.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and appends requirements. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing required fields explicitly).

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, nested object) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential purpose and requirements but omits details like expected return value or error conditions. Adequate but not thoroughly complete.

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%, and the description adds minimal value beyond schema descriptions. It lists fields inside the flag object, but the schema already includes a detailed description for the flag parameter. Baseline 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 the action 'Create a flag in a feature' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feature and create_feature_project by specifying the resource type (flag). The '(WRITE)' tag further clarifies the operation type.

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 provides necessary prerequisites (scope and environment variable), but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_feature_flag, nor does it specify when not to use it. The context is clear but incomplete.

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. It states it's a WRITE operation and requires a specific scope, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that—such as idempotency, error handling on duplicate projects, or response format. 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.

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

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states action and resource; the second provides prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and requirements but misses details like return values, error conditions, and idempotency. It adequately describes the 'what' and 'require' but not the full behavioral contract.

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 description explicitly lists expected fields ('key, name, description, owner, maintainers') beyond the schema's generic 'Project body per the Feature Management API spec.' Since schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter described), the description adds valuable context, clarifying what the open object should contain.

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 'Create a Feature Management project (WRITE).' The verb 'Create' and resource 'Feature Management project' are specific. The '(WRITE)' explicitly indicates it's a write operation, distinguishing it from read-only tools. Among siblings, the name and description differentiate from create_feature and create_feature_flag.

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 includes the required scope ('feature-management:projects:write') and the DT_ENABLE_WRITES condition, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_feature_flag) or scenarios where 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the WRITE nature and required scope, but omits implications like idempotency, success/failure behavior, or side effects. For a create operation, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope requirement. No redundant or unclear language. Every word adds value.

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 tool has one complex parameter and no output schema. The description does not explain the response behavior or error handling. While it covers the basics, additional details on return value or duplicate handling 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains that filterSegment is a definition with name, variables, etc. The description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 description clearly states the action is to create a new filter segment, specifies it is a WRITE operation, and identifies the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filter_segment and delete_filter_segment.

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 usage through the action and required scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not scenarios. No guidance on context or prerequisites beyond the scope.

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 full burden. It indicates it's a WRITE operation but does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, error scenarios, or return values. 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.

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and API context, followed by requirements. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavioral details. It lacks these, making it incomplete for a write operation. The sibling list indicates this is part of a CRUD family, but the description doesn't leverage that 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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters with detailed constraints. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 description clearly states 'Create a new custom Grail retention bucket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update, delete, list, and get by explicitly using 'Create'. The mention of 'WRITE' and API version adds context.

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 mentions required conditions (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, platform scope) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_grail_bucket. No guidance on handling existing buckets or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'IAM v1, WRITE' and token requirements, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavior on conflicts.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and essential auth requirement with no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value, idempotency, or validation of the group object.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Create a group at an organisational level', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_iam_user (create user) and list_iam_groups (list groups).

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires an account-scoped platform token with iam write scopes') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Marks it as a WRITE operation, but with no annotations, fails to disclose behaviors like idempotency, permissions required, or conflict handling. 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with a complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description omits return value, constraints, and prerequisites, leaving significant 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds the spec name reference but does not elaborate on parameter interactions 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new synthetic monitor definition' (verb+resource) and references the spec, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'delete_monitor'.

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?

Implies usage by referencing the spec types, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to choose BROWSER vs MULTI_PROTOCOL, or when to use update_monitor instead).

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. It discloses the HTTP method (multipart/form-data POST), serialization details, and environment requirement. It doesn't cover error cases or auth beyond DT_ENABLE_WRITES, but is fairly transparent.

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, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created notebook object). For a creation tool, return value is important context. Overall it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning: it explains the OR relationship between content and contentPath, and that contentPath is a file path. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Create a new notebook (WRITE)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_dashboard by mentioning the Document Service spec and the WRITE nature.

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 provides clear context: it requires DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true and explains the mutual exclusivity of content vs contentPath. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the prerequisites are clear enough for an agent.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions it's a WRITE operation but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, or authorization requirements. The agent is left to infer behavior from the name and 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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words, and all information is relevant. Achieves maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created attribute or confirmation). Given the complexity of nested objects in the schema, the description is minimal and could provide more context about behavior or response, but it meets the minimum viability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the minimum required fields (name, dataType, dataSources), which is not fully captured by the schema (only name is required in schema). This helps the agent understand what must be included.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'request attribute', with an explicit note that it's a WRITE operation using classic Config API v1. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_request_attribute or delete_request_attribute.

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?

Implies usage by stating the minimum required fields (name, dataType, dataSources), but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus update_request_attribute or other create tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only indicates it's a WRITE operation but does not describe idempotency, failure modes, rate limits, or return behavior (e.g., response structure). Incomplete given no annotations.

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

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

Single sentence with key information, front-loaded. However, the mention of 'naming' may be a typo, slight deduction. Overall efficient.

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 create tool with nested parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or typical usage context. With high complexity, more detail is needed.

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 description adds context by listing minimum required fields, but it includes 'naming' which is not in the schema (only 'namingPattern'), causing potential confusion. Schema coverage is 100% but description introduces inaccuracy.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'request naming rule', specifying it is a WRITE operation using the classic Config API v1. It is distinct from sibling tools like update, delete, and list.

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 provides minimum body requirements but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_request_naming. No context on when not to use it or typical scenarios.

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?

The description states it is a write operation, but without annotations, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overrides existing notifications, rate limits, or side effects. The 'WRITE' tag is minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and operation type. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly expanded for context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the notification spec is, how the notification is delivered, or what the response looks like. For a self-notification tool, more context about its purpose and behavior would be beneficial.

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 one required parameter 'notification' with a description that says 'Notification definition object. Pass all required fields per the notification spec.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3.

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 identifies the action (Create) and the resource (self-notification), and includes 'WRITE, platform notification v1' which specifies it's a write operation and the API version. This differentiates it from read/update/delete siblings. However, it does not explain what a self-notification is or what it does beyond creation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_event_notification or other notification creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using self-notifications.

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 present, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes '(WRITE)' implying mutation, but does not cover permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or consequences of creation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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 3 required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits return format, error handling, and constraints on inputs.

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 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or format of any parameter (schemaId, scope, value), leaving the agent without guidance beyond field names.

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 'Create a Settings 2.0 object' (action + resource) and distinguishes from siblings by recommending prior validation with validate_settings_object.

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?

Explicitly recommends validation first ('Validate first with validate_settings_object'), providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as 'WRITE' but provides no details on idempotency, side effects (e.g., replacement vs creation on duplicate), required permissions, or rate limits. The brief statement is insufficient for an agent to gauge impact.

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 sentence, very concise. The '(WRITE)' is slightly redundant given the verb 'Create' but does not harm. No wasted words; it could marginally improve by integrating a usage pointer.

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 tool has one complex parameter (slo object) and no output schema. The description references an external spec, which is helpful but vague. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., created SLO ID) or error scenarios. Given the rich schema, it is minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each property. The description only says 'Body fields per the SLO v1 spec (name, criteria, target, etc.)' – it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an SLO (WRITE).' It uses specific verb ('Create') and resource ('SLO'), and the '(WRITE)' distinguishes it as a mutation. Among siblings (list_slos, get_slo, update_slo, delete_slo), this tool's role 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?

The description mentions 'Body fields per the SLO v1 spec' but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool vs update_slo, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., need for an existing SLI definition). An agent would infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('CREATE') and token prerequisite, but lacks details on idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens if the policy already exists. The information is helpful but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every part serves a purpose: stating the action, clarifying the version (IAM v1), and noting the token requirement.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or success indicators. It also does not clarify the relationship with the sibling 'create_trust_policy_mapping'. For a simple create tool, it covers the core action but leaves gaps in how to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., for 'trustPolicy', the schema already lists fields). No extra semantic guidance 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 clearly states 'Create a WIF trust policy for an account', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_trust_policy_mapping' and other create tools by naming the policy type and scope. The inclusion of '(IAM v1, WRITE)' adds further 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires an account-scoped platform token.' This guides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_trust_policy or delete_trust_policy, nor does it specify exclusions.

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. The description indicates it is a WRITE operation requiring a specific token type, but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Purpose is stated first, followed by a prerequisite. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

While the purpose and prerequisite are clear, the description does not specify return values (no output schema provided), idempotency, or error handling. For a creation tool with required parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by detailing the structure of the 'mapping' object beyond the schema's generic 'additionalProperties', listing expected fields like serviceUserUuid, environmentId, etc.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('WIF service user mapping for a trust policy'), includes context (IAM v1, WRITE), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, list, get for the same resource.

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?

Mentions a prerequisite ('Requires an account-scoped platform token'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_trust_policy or add_iam_user. The name and context make it clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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. It discloses that this is a write operation, requires specific environment variable and token scope, and references the platform version. This adequately informs the agent of required permissions and operation type, though more detail on potential side effects could improve transparency.

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

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

Two sentences, each delivering essential information: the action and version, followed by prerequisites. No wasted words, and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 does not specify the return value (e.g., created workflow ID) or error scenarios. Given the tool's complexity (nested object) and absent output schema, the description could be more complete, but it covers the core purpose and prerequisites.

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%, with each sub-field of the 'workflow' parameter having a description. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Workflow definition per the AutomationEngine v1 spec'), so 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 description clearly states it creates a Dynatrace Automation workflow, identifies it as a WRITE operation, and specifies the platform version (v1). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_workflow and delete_workflow.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: requires DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true and automation:workflows:write scope. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but for a creation tool, the context is clear.

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

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

Discloses important behaviors: optimistic locking, trashing with 30-day restoration window, and required feature flag. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the main action and adds necessary details without extra words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Adequately describes the tool's effect and constraints, though lacks return value information. For a deletion tool, this is sufficient given the absence of an output 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context for 'version' (optimistic locking) but little beyond the schema. 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?

Clearly states the action 'Delete (trash) a dashboard by id' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other resources.

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?

Provides context like 'WRITE' operation, requirement for DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, and optimistic locking, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided; description adds 'WRITE, destructive' but omits side effects, auth needs, or confirmation. Incomplete for a destructive operation.

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

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

Single sentence with no waste. Key information (delete, by ID, WRITE, destructive, v2) is front-loaded.

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?

Complete enough for a one-parameter delete tool, but lacks mention of return values or confirmation. Minor gap.

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?

Only parameter 'id' with schema description 'Event-notification UUID.' Description adds no further meaning beyond schema; baseline 3 applies as coverage is 100%.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete an event-notification by ID' with additional context (WRITE, destructive, v2). Distinguishes from create, update, get, and list siblings.

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?

Implies use for deletion but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned.

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 full burden. It mentions 'WRITE, destructive' but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether deletion is reversible. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured without increasing length, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or any side effects, which are important for a destructive tool.

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 for the two parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'monitoring configuration for an Extension 2.0', distinguishing it from other sibling tools like 'create_extension_monitoring_config' and 'update_extension_monitoring_config'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a monitoring configuration should be deleted or any prerequisites. It only states the action without context.

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?

The description indicates the operation is destructive and requires specific auth, which is useful. However, it does not detail consequences (e.g., irreversibility) or return behavior, which would be helpful for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with essential information. No fluff.

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 deletion with two params and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention irreversibility or side effects, but the current info covers the core action and auth needs.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces the 'by key' relationship but does not add meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'feature by key within a project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_feature_flag and delete_feature_project by specifying 'feature'.

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 explicitly lists required scopes and environment variable, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative approaches.

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?

Without annotations, the description adds the crucial 'WRITE, destructive' nature and required scopes. It could further detail what cascade effects occur or idempotency, but it provides adequate transparency for safe use.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential information. No wasted words.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and destructive nature. It could mention what happens after deletion (e.g., no return value), but it is nearly complete.

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 explains each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'by key', remaining at baseline.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'feature flag', and specifies it is destructive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feature_flag or list_feature_flags.

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 lists required permissions and environment variable, providing clear prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a deletion 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?

Without annotations, description carries full burden. It correctly labels the operation as WRITE and destructive, and lists authorization requirements. Lacks details on side effects or irreversible nature, but sufficient for a delete operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded main action and separate prerequisite line. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, and operation type. Lacks mention of return value, but for a simple delete with no output schema, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description 'The project key.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly states 'Delete a Feature Management project by key', specifying verb, resource, and identifier. Distinguished from sibling delete tools like delete_feature by naming the resource type.

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

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

Provides explicit prerequisites: requires specific scope and DT_ENABLE_WRITES. Implicitly tells when to use (when you want to delete a project) but does not mention alternatives like update_feature_project for non-destructive changes.

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 correctly identifies the tool as destructive and write-scoped, and states the required authorization scope. It adds value by clarifying the operation's nature but does not detail potential irreversible effects or cascading consequences.

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 brief, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and resource. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the purpose and safety requirements, it fails to explain the single parameter 'uid', which is critical for correct usage. With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context to be fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'uid' parameter, and the description provides no additional explanation of what the UID represents, its format, or examples. This leaves the agent without enough context to correctly supply the parameter.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'filter segment by UID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, and get filter segments.

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 labels the operation as 'WRITE, destructive' and specifies the required scope 'storage:filter-segments:delete', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare 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?

Discloses destructive nature, asynchronous behavior, and required permissions. With no annotations, this is thorough coverage of behavioral traits.

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

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

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no unnecessary words.

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 single parameter and no output schema, description fully explains purpose, effects, constraints, and requirements.

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 covers the parameter basics, but description adds critical constraint about prohibited name prefixes, enhancing semantic understanding.

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?

Clearly states the action (delete), resource (Grail retention bucket), and effect (permanently removes data). Distinguishes from siblings with similar names.

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?

Provides explicit constraints (cannot delete buckets with 'default_' or 'dt_' prefix) and prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, required scope). Lacks explicit alternative suggestions but is clear on when to use.

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. It explicitly labels the operation as 'WRITE, destructive', which discloses key behavioral traits. However, it does not detail side effects or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place; zero waste.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could mention the return type or success confirmation, but is largely complete.

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% (parameter 'id' is documented). The description adds 'by entity ID', reinforcing but not expanding beyond the schema. 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 description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('synthetic monitor definition'), and specifies it is a WRITE destructive operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_dashboard and from read tools like get_monitor.

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 use for deleting a monitor when you have the entity ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the resource type and 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?

Discloses that the notebook is moved to trash (not permanently deleted), restorable for 30 days, and requires optimistic locking. Without annotations, the description fully covers the behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is three sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy, front-loading the core action and supporting details efficiently.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's effect (trash, restore window), locking requirement, and configuration flag. Missing details on auth or error handling, but still sufficient.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'id' and 'version'. The description reemphasizes the version's role in optimistic locking but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Delete (trash) a notebook by id' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_notebook' and 'update_notebook' by mentioning 'WRITE' and optimistic locking.

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?

Explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true' and the need to supply the current document version for optimistic locking, giving clear context for use. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for permanent deletion.

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?

Lacking annotations, the description labels the operation as 'WRITE' and 'destructive', which adds context. However, it does not disclose error states, permissions, or side effects beyond deletion.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, concise and to the point. No unnecessary words.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, labels the operation type, and includes API version 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?

The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning 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 it deletes a request attribute by ID, using specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_request_attribute' or 'update_request_attribute'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines provided. The terms 'WRITE' and 'destructive' hint at contexts but are not sufficiently directive for an AI agent to compare with 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?

No annotations provided. The description labels the tool as WRITE and destructive, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the simple action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or rollback capabilities.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does and the API type. It is adequate but could mention success/error indications.

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 description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The phrase 'by ID' mirrors the parameter description. 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 the action (delete), resource (request naming rule), and identification method (by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_request_attribute and other delete 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives are discussed.

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?

The description labels the operation as 'WRITE, destructive', which conveys mutability and potential irreversibility, but no annotations are provided to supplement. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or consequences beyond being destructive.

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 wasted words, effectively communicating the core action and key attributes.

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-param delete tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on error handling, idempotency, or return 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% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Self-notification UUID.' The description adds 'by ID' but provides no additional semantic meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'self-notification', and specifies it operates by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_self_notifications, get_self_notification, and update_self_notification.

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 use when you need to delete a specific self-notification, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 full burden. It indicates the operation is WRITE and destructive, implying data modification and irreversibility, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

One sentence efficiently conveys the purpose and a key behavioral note (WRITE, destructive). No extraneous words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the basics but lacks output information (no output schema) and any guidance on expected return values or error handling.

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 description mentions 'by objectId', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no format constraints, examples, or additional meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 (Delete), the resource (Settings 2.0 object), and the identifier (objectId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_settings_object or update_settings_object by specifying it's a delete operation and marks it as WRITE/destructive.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_settings_object or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context for deletion are mentioned.

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 provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'WRITE, destructive' indicating mutation and risk, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects.

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

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

Description is extremely concise with no superfluous words; essential information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action but omits context about id format, prerequisites, and consequences.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide any additional context about the 'id' parameter beyond the schema's basic type/required field.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes an SLO by ID, and explicitly labels it as 'WRITE, destructive', distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_slo and list_slos.

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 use when needing to delete an SLO, but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools for similar operations.

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. It discloses the destructive nature ('destructive') and auth requirement. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what the response looks like (no output schema), or any side effects. It provides basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences totaling 16 words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value with no fluff.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient but minimal. It misses common contextual details like error behavior, idempotency, or confirmation steps. Given the complexity (low), it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds some context (delete by UUID, requires account-scoped token) but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, validation, how to obtain values).

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('WIF trust policy'), and the identifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes the tool from numerous sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_dashboard, delete_monitor) by specifying the unique resource type.

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 mentions a prerequisite (account-scoped platform token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_trust_policy_mapping, or how to obtain the UUID. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' 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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. States 'destructive' and 'WRITE' but lacks details on reversibility, side effects, rate limits, or return behavior. For a deletion tool, more disclosure is needed.

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?

Single sentence that conveys purpose, scope, type, and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

Covers basic purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks explanation of deletion effects, return value (no output schema), or error cases. Adequate but not thorough for a 3-required-param mutation tool.

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% with clear descriptions per parameter. The description adds little beyond 'by UUID' which is already implied by the parameter names. 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?

Clearly states the action (delete) and resource (WIF service user mapping by UUID). Explicitly labels as IAM v1, WRITE, destructive, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_trust_policy_mapping or delete_trust_policy.

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?

Mentions a prerequisite (account-scoped platform token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative deletion tools (e.g., delete_trust_policy, delete_iam_user). No when-not or alternative tools mentioned.

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?

Description discloses that the tool is destructive (delete) and requires specific permissions, which is critical behavioral information. Without annotations, it carries the full transparency burden. It could mention irreversibility or post-deletion effects, but for a simple ID-based delete, it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences total; the first states the core action and resource, the second adds prerequisites. No wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it (permissions), and its destructive nature. No critical information is missing for correct 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?

Input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but the 100% schema coverage means the description does not need to. The overall tool context (destructive, permissions) indirectly aids parameter understanding. 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?

Description explicitly states the verb (delete), resource (Dynatrace Automation workflow), and identifier (by ID). It also tags the tool as WRITE and destructive, making its purpose unmistakable. Among siblings with similar delete_* tools, it is clearly differentiated by specifying the workflow context.

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 lists required prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true and automation:workflows:write scope), providing clear usage conditions. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like update_workflow or list_workflows, though the destructive nature implies a specific use case. Lacks explicit when-not to use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the async nature ('Uses the async evaluation:start / evaluation:poll flow'), but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or how the polling works. The information is minimal but not contradictory.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose and signal the async flow. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 moderate complexity (async flow, optional timeframes, no output schema), the description does not explain what the compliance result looks like, how to handle the async lifecycle, or any constraints. It's insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand behavior without external spec references.

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% and schema descriptions are already clear. The tool description adds only a general statement about returning compliance, not additional semantic detail for the parameters. 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 description clearly states the action ('Evaluate an SLO by ID') and the result ('return its compliance result'), and specifies it's for 'platform SLO v1'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slo (which returns definition) and list_slos.

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 mentions the async evaluation flow but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_slo or why a custom timeframe might be needed. There is no when-not-to-use or clarification of tradeoffs.

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 present, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the action and target but does not disclose whether it is read-only or has side effects. DQL queries are typically read-only, but this is not stated. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loading purpose and usage. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about the return record structure, which would be helpful for an agent. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for 'query' and 'maxResultRecords'. The tool description adds an example but does not further clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 description clearly states the tool executes a DQL statement against Grail and returns result records. It lists applicable data sources (logs, spans, etc.) and provides an example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_logs or verify_dql.

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 says 'Use for logs, spans/traces, events, metrics, and entities,' indicating appropriate contexts. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools list provides implicit 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?

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: explicitly labels as DESTRUCTIVE, states data cannot be restored, details timeframe constraints, queuing, return of taskId, required DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, and specific scopes. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized with critical info front-loaded (DESTRUCTIVE). Could be more structured with bullet points for constraints, but it's efficient and every sentence adds value.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all aspects: constraints, prerequisites, return value (taskId), and execution behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value with a concrete query example, clarifies when timeframe is ignored, and mentions defaults for timezone/locale. Slight improvement could be more structured format.

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 starts with 'DESTRUCTIVE — permanently deletes Grail records', clearly stating the verb (deletes) and resource (Grail records). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_dql or cancel_record_deletion by specifying the destructive scope and constraints.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use information: mentions permanence, timeframe limits (24h, end at least 4h past), queuing behavior, required env variable and scopes, and allowed query commands. Does not explicitly compare to other tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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 full burden. It discloses two behavioral modes (Grail DQL vs classic API) and the required type() clause. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and provides key usage tips. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but overall efficient.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the entitySelector constraint and classic mode, but omits details on pagination (pageSize, from, to), return value format, and potential errors or limits. For a complex query tool, more depth is needed.

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 40% (2 of 5 parameters described). The description adds important context for entitySelector (must include type()) and useClassic (for Gen2 tenants), but fails to explain 'from', 'to', and 'pageSize' parameters which are left to their schema definitions. This partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 that the tool queries Smartscape entities via Grail DQL, with an alternative classic mode. While it distinguishes from other entity tools by mentioning the DQL path requirement, it could be more explicit about the scope of entities queried and the returned format, which prevents 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the classic API (useClassic:true for Gen2 tenants) and a necessary condition for the entitySelector (must include type() clause). However, it does not compare this tool to siblings like get_entity or list_entity_types to help decide when to use which.

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?

Discloses it's a GET (read-only) and requires auditLogs.read scope. No annotations, so description carries burden; it adequately conveys safety and access needs.

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?

One sentence with clear purpose, scope, and endpoint. No unnecessary text, front-loaded with key info.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter, no output schema. Description covers essentials; could mention return format but not critical for a get operation.

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 covers 100% of parameter with description. Description adds context that the ID is the 'logId field', slightly enhancing understanding.

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?

Clearly states 'Get a single audit log entry by its log ID' which is a specific action. Distinguishes from sibling list_audit_logs by focusing on a single entry.

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?

States required scope and endpoint, but does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives like list_audit_logs. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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 present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only and uses the classic Config API v1, which informs about safe usage. No details on permissions or limits, but adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Single, direct sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with key details.

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 the tool has only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not describe the return format or any pagination, which could be useful but is not critical for a single-item retrieval.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description reiterates 'by technology and ID' but does not add additional context beyond what is already in the schema. 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?

Description clearly specifies action (Get), resource (custom service definition), and key parameters (technology and ID). It also indicates read-only nature and API version, making it distinct from siblings like list_custom_services.

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 description: use when you need a single custom service by technology and ID. However, no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use is provided, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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 provided, but description discloses internal behavior (fetches from two endpoints and merges) and output structure, providing good transparency for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, directly stating purpose and internal operation. Excellent conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output shape. Single parameter is well-documented. Completeness is high.

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 covers 100% with a brief description; the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states the action 'Get a dashboard by id' and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_dashboards and create_dashboard.

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?

Implies usage via verb+resource but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No mention of prerequisites or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the backend difference (Grail DQL vs classic API) but lacks details on read-only nature, permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.

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

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

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy; front-loads the main purpose and parameter insight.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameter rationale, though it omits return value structure and error handling.

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%, yet the description adds value by explaining the default behavior (Grail DQL) and the purpose of useClassic parameter, going beyond the schema's inline descriptions.

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 tool queries a single Smartscape entity by id via Grail DQL, and distinguishes from siblings like find_entities and other get_* tools by specifying the exact backend and scope.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use the classic API (Gen2 tenants) but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives for entity search; overall clear context for a single-entity retrieval.

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. It only states the operation (get) without disclosing behavioral details like idempotency, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the action.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could hint at the response format, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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% (1 parameter with description 'Event-notification UUID'). The tool description adds 'by ID' but no extra semantic value beyond the schema. 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 description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'single event-notification by ID', with 'platform notification v2' distinguishing from other notification types. Among siblings like list_event_notifications and get_self_notification, it uniquely identifies this tool's specific purpose.

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 use for retrieving a specific event notification by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings (e.g., list_event_notifications for multiple, create/update/delete for mutations). No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or read-only nature. The description merely states the function without additional 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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an AI agent 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not inform the agent about what the return value contains (e.g., properties of versions). For a simple tool, additional context on output would be helpful for complete understanding.

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% with the parameter 'extensionName' having a clear example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 the action (list), the resource (versions of an Extension 2.0), and the qualifier (by name, specific). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_extensions' which lists all extensions, and 'get_extension_monitoring_config' which focuses on a different aspect.

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 usage when you need versions of a specific extension, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternative sibling tools like 'list_extensions'. There is no guidance on when not to use or best practices.

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 provided, and description only says 'Get' with no disclosure of side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal 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.

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

Single sentence, straight to the point, no redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 get with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about what the configuration contains or any constraints.

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% and parameter description is clear ('The extension name.'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and specific resource 'environment-level configuration for an Extension 2.0', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_extension' and 'get_extension_monitoring_config'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_extension, get_extension_monitoring_config). Does not specify prerequisites or context.

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?

The description indicates a read operation without side effects, but does not mention any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Get details' which is minimally transparent.

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 of 12 words with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the 'details' contain, which could be useful for an AI agent. However, for a simple get operation, it may be sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters (extensionName and configurationId). The description adds context by specifying 'monitoring configuration for an Extension 2.0', but does not add meaning beyond what the schema 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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'details of a specific monitoring configuration for an Extension 2.0'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_extension_monitoring_configs and other get_* tools by focusing on a single configuration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_extension_monitoring_configs first). The description implies use when you have a specific configurationId, but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Without annotations, the description adds transparency by noting the required scope and API source. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though get is read-only), error behavior, or rate limits, leaving 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.

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the required scope. It contains no filler words and is optimally front-loaded.

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 get operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and authorization. However, it lacks details on return value format or typical usage context, which would aid an agent in understanding what to expect.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both required parameters ('projectKey' and 'featureKey'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a feature by key within a project', making its purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_features' (listing) and 'get_feature_flag' (different entity) without explicit contrast.

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 specifies a required OAuth scope, which is helpful for authorization context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_features' or 'get_feature_project'), nor any exclusion conditions.

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 full burden. It states a read operation and required scope, but does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., full flag object) or any other behavioral traits like idempotency or caching.

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?

Two concise sentences provide the action, context, and required scope without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by indicating what the response contains (e.g., flag details). It also lacks guidance on parameter relationships. However, it provides essential context for a get operation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but accurately conveys that the tool retrieves a flag by key. Baseline 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 'Get a feature flag by key' and references the Dynatrace Feature Management API, specifying the required scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feature_flags or create_feature_flag.

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 mentions the required scope but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_feature_flags for fetching all flags). Usage is implied but not compared to 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing read-only nature, idempotency, authentication needs, or side effects.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but could be more informative. It does not waste words but lacks depth for a standalone explanation.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not, and it fails to differentiate from similar tools, leaving an agent without sufficient 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 coverage is 100% (projectKey described as 'The project key.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('Feature Management project') with a specific identifier ('by key'), distinguishing it from list and create/update/delete sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_feature' or 'list_feature_projects'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it's a 'get' operation by UID, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minor version info adds little value.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 getter by ID with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks explicit mention of return value or error conditions. However, it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the basic purpose.

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 0% (description does not mention the parameter 'uid'). The description says 'by UID' but does not explain format, constraints, or source. Adds minimal context beyond what the schema already implies (uid is an identifier).

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 (Get), the resource (filter segment), and the identifier (by UID). It also mentions the API version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_filter_segment, delete_filter_segment, update_filter_segment, and list_filter_segments.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_filter_segments for listing all). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context 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; the description only says 'Get' without disclosing any behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or error handling. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 extraneous words. Front-loaded with key 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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. Lacks mention of return value or error conditions, but adequate given simplicity.

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% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. 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 the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a single Grail retention bucket definition' by name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_grail_buckets, create_grail_bucket, etc.

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 usage for retrieving a single bucket by name but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required auth scope 'iam:users:read' and notes that it retrieves 'active' users. It does not mention potential errors or return value characteristics, but for a simple get operation, this is adequate.

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 that concisely states the purpose and the required auth scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what action is performed, what resource is retrieved, how to identify it, and a key behavioral constraint (auth scope). It is complete enough 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.

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by UUID' and 'organisational level', which are already implied by the parameter names and schema descriptions. 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 description clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'single active user', the identifier 'UUID', and the scope 'organisational level (IAM v1)'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_iam_users and add_iam_user.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to get a single active user by UUID) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context of 'single' vs 'list' implies the sibling distinction.

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 full burden. It only mentions availability constraints on certain tenants but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being a read-only operation, required permissions, response size, or side effects. The minimal extra information leaves the agent guessing about important aspects.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the main action and providing an important usage note. It is not overly wordy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 the simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an availability caveat. However, it lacks details about the returned metadata structure (e.g., what fields are included), which would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% (the metricKey parameter has a description with an example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get the descriptor/metadata for a single metric by key', specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_metrics (lists all metrics) and query_metric (retrieves time series) by mentioning the metadata focus and providing alternatives, though not explicitly differentiating from all siblings.

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 explicitly states that on Gen3/Grail tenants the endpoint may be unavailable and suggests using query_metric or execute_dql instead. This provides clear context and alternatives, though it does not cover all possible usage scenarios or exclusions.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get the full definition' without mentioning that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation or any auth/rate limit constraints. The description lacks transparency 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.

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what input it needs, and what it returns (full definition). It is complete for its complexity level.

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% with a single parameter described. The description mentions 'by its entity ID', which aligns with the schema description but adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the parameter's role. 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves the full definition of a single synthetic monitor by entity ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_monitors (which lists) and other get_* tools by specifying 'synthetic monitor'.

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 use when you need the full definition for a specific monitor. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like list_monitors for overviews, but the purpose is clear.

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