IoT MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Vendor prefixes like tb_, sonoff_, and fortigate_ help distinguish tools, but generic tools such as iot_execute_command and iot_get_config overlap with vendor-specific CLI tools, and multiple list_devices/device_status variants across platforms require careful reading. Some pairs like dss_record_status and dahua_nvr_recording_status are also easy to confuse.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a vendor_prefix + verb + noun pattern, but the verb choice is inconsistent (get/list/show/send/set/toggle/execute) and some names like vpn_status, dss_record_status, dahua_nvr_ptz, and hf_at_command break the pattern entirely. The overall scheme is readable but not uniformly predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 135 tools, this is far above the threshold where an agent can efficiently navigate the surface. The server attempts to cover many unrelated domains—IoT, switches, firewalls, NAS, hypervisors, and video surveillance—making the toolset unwieldy for its stated 'IoT' purpose.
Completeness2/5
Coverage is wide but shallow: most platforms have only read/status operations, with few create/update/delete endpoints. Major lifecycle gaps exist—Proxmox cannot start/stop VMs, OpenStack cannot create servers, and several device types lack provisioning or configuration tools.
Average 3.4/5 across 135 of 135 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention the required `device_id` parameter, which conflicts with the 'list all' claim. This is a significant transparency gap. No mention of pagination, auth, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it omits the parameter constraint, which is a substantive omission, but as a concise summary it is acceptably brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool but description is incomplete due to the unexplained `device_id` requirement and lack of return information. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema provides a minimal description ('OpenStack device ID'). The description adds no 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a clear resource and action ('List all compute instances'), but the required `device_id` parameter creates ambiguity about what 'all' means. It distinguishes from `openstack_server_detail` by scope, but doesn't clarify the filtering implied by the parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `openstack_server_detail` or `openstack_server_action`. No context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It fails to explain why a device_id is required for a 'list all' operation, nor does it mention authentication, pagination, output format, or side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to read. It would earn a 5 if not for the misleading 'all' qualifier that contradicts the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially mystifying required parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's scope, use cases, or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% parameter coverage with the description 'ESPHome controller device ID', so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description's 'list all' phrasing conflicts with the required parameter, adding confusion rather than clarity. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'ESPHome devices', but it claims to list 'all' devices while the input schema requires a specific device_id. This inconsistency undermines the clarity of what the tool actually does, making it less distinct from sibling tools like espconnect_list_devices or iot_list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many similar list devices tools (e.g., sonoff_list_devices, tuya_list_devices, tb_list_devices), the description offers no selection criteria or context, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether it lists all floating IPs or filters by project/tenant, nor does it explain the role of the required device_id parameter, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is immediately understandable and front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple list operation, though it could be expanded with a few valuable details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one required parameter (device_id), but the description does not explain why it is required or what it does. There is no output schema, so the description should indicate expected return values, but it does not. For a tool that is not just a plain 'list all' but appears to filter by device, the missing context is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for device_id is simply 'OpenStack device ID', which is vague and does not explain whether it refers to a server, port, or router. The description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, such as how it filters the listing or whether it is required for all calls. Although schema coverage is 100%, the provided description is insufficient, so the score is below the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('floating IPs in OpenStack (Neutron)'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is unique among the openstack_* siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when NOT to use it. The description simply states the function without contextualizing it relative to other network or server listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, whether actions are synchronous/asynchronous, permission requirements, or idempotency. The description merely restates the action names without explaining consequences or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. It is efficiently worded with no filler, making it easy to scan. All content is relevant, even if brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of output schema, and absent annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or state-transition rules (e.g., cannot pause a stopped server). The enum provides options but not the context needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (action, device_id, server_id) are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing some action values that are already in the enum. No additional semantic detail about device_id vs server_id is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Perform an action on an OpenStack server' and lists several concrete actions (start, stop, reboot, pause, suspend, resume). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openstack_list_servers and openstack_server_detail. However, it omits some enum actions (hard-reboot, unpause) and could be more explicit about state management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions for choosing specific actions. The description does not clarify that start is for stopped servers, stop is for running servers, etc. Usage is only implied by the tool's existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether the command is fire-and-forget, whether a response is returned, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for an RPC operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only seven words, which is concise but at the cost of crucial details. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; it omits prerequisites, return behavior, and usage context, making it less practical than it should be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the response format, error handling, or device availability requirements. This is a significant gap for a command-sending tool, making the description inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema provides some descriptions. However, the distinction between device_id and tb_device_id is ambiguous, and the tool description does not clarify the semantics beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the primary action ('Send RPC command') and the target ('ThingsBoard device'), which identifies the tool's core function. However, it does not elaborate on what RPC entails or differentiate it from sibling tools like iot_execute_command, so it slightly misses full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tb_device_telemetry or iot_execute_command. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or examples that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states a list operation but does not mention required parameters, return format, potential side effects, or any prerequisites. The phrase 'List all' hints at a read-only operation, but deeper behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It lacks useful structure or elaboration, making it minimally informative rather than concisely rich.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This simple list tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what the response contains or how the device_id parameter is used. It does neither, leaving the agent without enough context to understand the tool's full behavior or its relationship to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter (device_id) with a description. The tool description adds no meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'ESPConnect devices', making the tool's function obvious. However, it does little more than restate the tool name, so it lacks additional specification that would fully distinguish it from similar list tools for other platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list_devices tools, there is no contextual information about preferring this for ESPConnect or excluding others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('list') without disclosing pagination behavior, filtering options, sorting, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets to the point. However, it's too terse to earn a 5, as it could include key details (e.g., required device_id, pagination) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to compensate. It provides only the basic action and platform, omitting details about required parameters, filtering, pagination, or how results are returned. This is inadequate for a 5-parameter tool with complex filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't mention that device_id is required or explain the date/time filters. The schema already handles this, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List alarms/events from Dahua DSS platform.' It identifies the platform (Dahua DSS), which provides some differentiation from generic list tools, but doesn't distinguish from sibling alarm-listing tools like tb_get_alarms or dahua_nvr_alarms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The description is purely functional with no situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without revealing side effects (e.g., device reboot, downtime, potential for bricking), any required permissions, or expected output. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting tokens.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a firmware update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, this description is critically incomplete. The agent is left unaware of the operation's risks, post-update behavior, or how to verify success, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither clarifies nor obscures parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Trigger OTA firmware update' with a specific resource and scope ('on an ESPConnect device'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like espconnect_list_devices and espconnect_send_command, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is from the tool's name and sibling context, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'send a command' without revealing side effects, required permissions, response format, or error behavior, which is crucial for a command-sending tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, but it lacks any structured breakdown that could improve scannability, such as listing key constraints or what the command does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the command does, possible return values, and limitations. It provides none of this, making the description insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (device_id, esp_device_id, command), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a command to an ESPConnect device, using a specific verb and resource. However, 'command' is generic and the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like iot_execute_command or tuya_send_commands beyond the protocol name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It implies mutation (turning on device) but does not specify whether it can cause physical changes, require auth, fail silently, or return status/errors. This is a significant transparency gap for an action-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with front-loaded action and examples. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, a nested 'data' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, error behavior, or how to discover valid service names, leaving an agent with insufficient context to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds only examples, not deeper semantics like the relationship between device_id and esphome_device, or how 'data' maps to service parameters. It meets the baseline but does not compensate beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('call') and resource ('service on an ESPHome device') with concrete examples ('turn on light, switch relay'), making the core function clear. It is distinct from read-only siblings like esphome_get_states, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from similar service-call tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a device_id from esphome_list_devices, nor does it contrast with other ESPHome tools or generic command executors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It merely states the action 'Get logs' without describing the output format, whether logs are streamed or returned as a snapshot, or any required access permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It clearly states the core action and resource in a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides only the basic purpose. It does not explain what kind of logs are returned, how they are presented, or any limitations. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual output, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (device_id and esphome_device) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, but the schema is sufficient to understand the required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'logs from an ESPHome device', which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this from other log-retrieval tools like switch_show_logs or qnap_get_logs, though the ESPHome context is evident from the name and sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as esphome_get_states or other device-specific log tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the action without revealing whether commands can modify device state, what privileges are used, how output is returned, or any timeouts/error handling. This is a significant gap for a command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially dangerous arbitrary-command execution tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention return values, safety risks, authentication requirements, or how this tool fits among the numerous read-only sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have basic descriptions. The description adds context that device_id refers to SSH-capable devices and command can be any CLI command for listed vendors, but it does not elaborate on command syntax, device_id format, or execution behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('CLI command on any SSH-capable device'), listing example vendors. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fortigate_execute_cli or mikrotik_execute_command, which serve similar purposes for specific vendors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this generic executor versus vendor-specific execute_command tools or read-only inspection commands. There is no mention of prerequisites, safety restrictions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List available images.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or filtering is supported, what authentication is required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation fallback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the tool's purpose. It is not verbose, and every word is meaningful. However, it is extremely terse, which limits its helpfulness but does not warrant a lower score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a required device_id parameter that is not explained in the context of listing images, and there is no output schema or annotation to clarify expectations. The description is too sparse to give an agent a complete understanding of when and how to use this tool, especially given the large sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents device_id as 'OpenStack device ID.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as why it is needed or how it affects the results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists available images in OpenStack (Glance), which is a specific verb (list) and resource (images) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like openstack_list_servers or openstack_list_flavors. However, it does not clarify the role of the required device_id parameter, leaving some ambiguity about whether images are scoped to a device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openstack_list_servers or openstack_list_flavors. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, so an agent has no help in selecting this tool over similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'get recent tasks/operations', which implies a read-only operation without side effects, but does not explain the return format, default sorting, what 'recent' means, or whether it includes pending/completed tasks. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and object. It avoids unnecessary words but is slightly generic. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriately sized, though a bit more detail could be included without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with fully described parameters, the description provides adequate context to understand the tool's purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be more specific about the returned data (e.g., list of task IDs, statuses, timestamps). The tool is not overly complex, but the description leaves some ambiguity about the exact nature of the tasks returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the tool's purpose. The schema already provides clear descriptions for node, limit, and device_id, which is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves recent tasks/operations from a Proxmox node, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the task log rather than node status, VM listing, or other operations. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., cluster-wide vs. node-specific) and how it differs from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other Proxmox-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only hint is the name 'get_tasks', which weakly implies usage for monitoring recent activity, but this is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Get status'. It does not mention read-only behavior, potential side effects, prerequisites, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, free of filler. It is front-loaded and concise, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and interacts with a vendor-specific API. The description provides no context on what 'status' includes, what response format to expect, or how it differs from similar status tools, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters fully (device_id and sonoff_device_id), and the description adds no additional meaning. Per rubric, schema coverage is 100% so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get status of a Sonoff device' clearly states the action (get) and resource (status of Sonoff device). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sonoff_get_power_usage or sonoff_toggle, and the exact nature of 'status' remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonoff_list_devices, sonoff_get_power_usage, or iot_device_status. There are no exclusions or context hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all Sonoff/eWeLink devices', which implies a read-only operation but does not mention side effects, authentication, pagination, or return format. This is a minimal disclosure with potential gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and direct, though it lacks detail that would make it 'excellent'. The brevity is appropriate for a simple list operation, but it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations or output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the required parameter relates to the action. It does neither. The odd requirement of a device_id to list 'all' devices is also unaddressed, making the context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the one parameter (device_id) with 'Sonoff/eWeLink cloud account device ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'List all Sonoff/eWeLink devices'. It is specific and distinguishes from non-Sonoff tools, though it does not differentiate from other brand-specific list tools (e.g., tuya_list_devices) beyond the brand name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives the action and resource, with no mention of suitable contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It says 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or describe any other behavioral traits (e.g., timeout behavior, error conditions). The description is too sparse to disclose what happens on execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is extremely minimal, lacking any structure or elaboration that could be valuable for a simple command.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned status contains. It does not. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output, despite the simple parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes device_id as 'Switch device ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show') and the resource ('spanning tree status'), distinguishing it from sibling switch_show_* tools by naming a specific status type. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of spanning tree are shown (e.g., root bridge, port roles), 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other switch_show_* tools. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it 'gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but provides no detail about potential error cases, response format, or whether device offline conditions affect the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that avoids repetition. It is appropriately sized for its limited content, though it could include more useful details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent can expect. It only mentions 'status/properties' without elaborating on the actual returned data or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a standalone tool description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to explain nuanced differences between 'device_id' and 'tuya_device_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'status/properties of a Tuya device'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming Tuya, though it does not differentiate from similar status tools for other platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like tuya_list_devices or tuya_send_commands. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a listing action but does not explain the scope implied by device_id, authentication requirements, return format, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly expanded to cover critical context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but the description is overly terse. The required device_id parameter and the claim of 'all' devices are unexplained, return values are not described, and the presence of many sibling tools suggests a need for clearer contextual differentiation, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the device_id parameter fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. However, the description adds no additional meaning about how device_id relates to listing 'all' devices, leaving potential confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all Tuya cloud devices' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for Tuya devices. However, the presence of a required device_id parameter creates ambiguity about what 'all' means, slightly diminishing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like tuya_device_status or iot_list_devices. The only differentiator is the 'Tuya' in the name, which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits important context such as whether the device must be online, whether the command is irreversible, what happens on failure, or whether it only affects the specified device. For a command-sending tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified, but the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency, and this is the most concise possible description of the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description offers only a high-level action and fails to provide essential context about command formatting, prerequisites, or integration with other Tuya tools. Given the complexity of sending commands to an IoT device, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to repeat. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('send control commands') and identifies the resource ('Tuya device'), making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like iot_execute_command or espconnect_send_command, which also send commands, so it is slightly generic but not vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools like tuya_device_status or iot_execute_command are given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., scene executions may turn devices on/off), authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. No additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, the description lacks crucial selection and context information. It does not mention related tools, prerequisites like listing available scenes, or the real-world impact of triggering a scene. For a tool without annotations or output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantics such as how to discover the scene_id or device_id, or any constraints on values. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Trigger' with the resource 'Tuya smart scene', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from general command tools like tuya_send_commands by naming the scene-specific operation, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not mention that scene IDs can be obtained via tuya_get_scenes, nor does it indicate when to choose this over tuya_send_commands for controlling devices. This leaves the agent without selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states what the tool does without revealing any behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or performance characteristics. This is entirely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the purpose immediately. It is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by specifying what is returned (e.g., list of channel IDs) and any relevant behavior. It does not, leaving the agent with only a vague notion of 'camera channels'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter (device_id) with a clear description, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this scores a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('camera channels connected to a Dahua NVR/DVR'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dahua_nvr_system_info or dahua_nvr_channel_status. It precisely states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is the purpose itself, but there is no explicit context or comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that suspend saves VM state, that the VM becomes suspended, or that it can be resumed later. This is inadequate for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by stating the exact operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a VM suspend operation. It omits prerequisites, effects, and any behavioral context, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both vm_id and device_id are described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema fully documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Suspend a VM on ESXi' clearly uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like esxi_power_on, esxi_power_off, and esxi_restart_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the VM must be powered on) or differentiate suspend from power off.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that the required 'device_id' implies dashboards are scoped to a device, nor does it mention any read-only nature, pagination, or output format. It is essentially a label.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. It is concise but lacks needed detail about the device_id relationship, making it borderline under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain why 'device_id' is required, what dashboards are returned, or any filtering semantics. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'device_id' as 'ThingsBoard server device ID' giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any further meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List dashboards from ThingsBoard' is clear and specific: it identifies a particular resource (dashboards) and the platform. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which mention dashboards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no alternative tool comparisons, and no context like 'use this to see all dashboards for a device'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention safety (read-only indication is absent), required permissions, failure modes, or any side effects, though the get operation implies non-destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not mention what the network configuration includes or what format to expect. It is adequate for a trivial getter but leaves some contextual gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes device_id as 'Dahua NVR device ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the target resource (network configuration from a Dahua NVR), making the tool's purpose evident. It is specific enough to differentiate from other Dahua NVR tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dahua_nvr_system_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. There is no context about scenarios where this is the right choice compared to other Dahua NVR or network-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool checks status, which is a read operation. It does not mention whether the check is real-time, if any special permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. Minimal context is provided beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or redundant information, efficiently stating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It states the action but does not describe the return format, whether it returns a list or single status, or any limitations. This is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both device_id and device_codes having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate, where to obtain valid device codes, or any format expectations. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking online/offline status of devices in Dahua DSS. The verb 'check' and specific resource 'online/offline status of devices' make the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dss_device_info, which may also provide status information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when another tool like dss_list_devices or dss_device_info might be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List', but it does not mention pagination behavior, required parameters, or response characteristics. There is no information about side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, with no unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple (list operation, moderate parameter count), but with no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the agent is left without usage guidelines or behavioral context. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks depth for confident invocation in nuanced situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all three parameters (page, device_id, page_size) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('devices managed by Dahua DSS platform'), distinguishing it from other DSS tools like dss_list_channels. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar device-list tools on other platforms (e.g., iot_list_devices, tb_list_devices), so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get detailed info'. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is included in the response, or any permission requirements, offering minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and subject.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two well-described parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context and expected output specifics, and without annotations or an output schema, it leaves ambiguity about what 'detailed info' entails, making it less complete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (device_id and esphome_device) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed info about an ESPHome device', making the basic purpose understandable. However, 'detailed info' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like esphome_get_states, which also fetches device-specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as esphome_get_states or esphome_list_devices. The description offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get detailed information' without disclosing the return format, error behavior, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. This adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified, lacking any detail about the information returned or usage context, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes, but it does not. The tool is simple, but the description is still incomplete for a 'get details' operation, especially considering the required device_id and optional vm_id/vm_name relationship.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., vm_id as 'VM identifier (e.g. vm-1)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a specific VM on ESXi' clearly states the action (get) and resource (detailed VM info). The phrase 'specific VM' distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_list_vms, which lists VMs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention whether it returns active leases only, requires admin privileges, or how it handles unreachable devices. Minimal behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the purpose. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too terse to fully inform an agent. It doesn't describe the return format, potential errors, or scope of results, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description 'Fortigate device ID' is clear. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how the device ID is used or any format expectations. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get DHCP leases from Fortigate' clearly states the action (get), the resource (DHCP leases), and the scope (Fortigate), distinguishing it from other fortigate_* tools and vendor-specific variants like mikrotik_get_dhcp_leases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mikrotik_get_dhcp_leases) or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not the context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that this operation is safe/non-mutating, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one focused sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description names the purpose adequately. However, it does not describe the return format, any limitations, or typical use cases. It is minimal but sufficient for a basic get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id described as 'Mikrotik device ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it correctly relies on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (Get) and the resource (DHCP server leases from Mikrotik), distinguishing it from other Mikrotik tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes. However, it lacks explicit scope details (e.g., all leases vs. specific interface), so it's clear but not maximally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, any prerequisites (e.g., device availability, API permissions), or alternatives. The name makes the purpose obvious, but an agent gets no decision-making context beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List shared folders' with no mention of return format, required permissions, whether it is read-only, or potential failure modes. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and the resource. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on what fields are returned (e.g., folder names, paths), any required authentication context, or how the output is structured. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter device_id, which is adequately described as 'Synology NAS device ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List shared folders' and the resource 'Synology NAS', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like synology_get_storage or synology_get_disks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings by naming alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Synology tools or similar tools like qnap_get_shared_folders. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the read-only implication of 'Get'. It does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the returned telemetry data looks like or how to interpret results. It is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and expected response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate since the schema already describes all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get latest telemetry data for a ThingsBoard device' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('latest telemetry data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tb_device_attributes (attributes vs telemetry) and tb_list_devices (listing vs telemetry).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as tb_device_attributes or tb_list_devices. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get active alarms' without explaining what 'active' means, whether the filter is applied, the response format, or any side effects. This is minimal beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral context means the agent must infer what the returned alarms look like and how 'active' is defined. This is a modest gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (severity filter, device_id context). The schema adequately defines their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('active alarms from ThingsBoard'), accurately conveying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from other alarm-related sibling tools like 'dss_list_alarms' or 'dahua_nvr_alarms', though the 'ThingsBoard' qualifier provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves alarms for a specific device (despite 'device_id' being required), nor does it contrast with similar alarm-listing tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get alarm/event history' without mentioning whether it is read-only, requires authentication, supports time ranges, or how defaults like count=50 behave. The schema hints at a default count, but the description does not elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise without any filler or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that could involve pagination, authentication, or filtering, the description is too sparse. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect or how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'alarm/event history' from a Dahua NVR. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dahua_nvr_system_info or dahua_nvr_get_channels by focusing on alarm/event retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dss_list_alarms or tb_get_alarms. It lacks any context about prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or why one would choose this over other alarm-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not explain what the recording status/mode values are, whether it queries the entire NVR or a channel, or any potential side effects or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value looks like. It does not, leaving the term 'recording status/mode' ambiguous. Given the simplicity of the endpoint, a bit more detail about possible values or the targeted scope would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for device_id ('Dahua NVR device ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the single parameter is straightforward and self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get recording status/mode from a Dahua NVR'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like dahua_nvr_system_info, dahua_nvr_get_channels, and dahua_nvr_storage_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only implied context is from the tool's name and purpose, but there is no explicit comparison to similar tools like dss_record_status or dahua_nvr_channel_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'get' but does not mention return format, prerequisites, potential errors, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse given the lack of output schema and annotations. It does not clarify what specific storage/HDD information will be returned, leaving the agent to guess the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter (device_id) with a clear description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('storage/HDD info from a Dahua NVR'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like dahua_nvr_system_info or dahua_nvr_get_channels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely restates the obvious function without providing context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' which indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, output format, or any limitations. This is sparse for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the essential function without extraneous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should provide some indication of what 'detailed info' includes. It is vague and leaves the agent guessing about the return fields or structure. For a tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema, merely restating the tool's purpose. Parameter meanings are already clear from the property descriptions, so the description neither helps nor hinders.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info of a device managed by Dahua DSS'), effectively conveying the core function. It subtly distinguishes from sibling tools like dss_list_devices and dss_device_online_status by implying a more comprehensive fetch for a single device, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when detailed information about a specific DSS device is needed) but offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The context is minimal and relies on the agent to infer the use case from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get status' without detailing what status includes, whether the data is real-time, error behavior, or permissions required. This is minimal transparency for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose without any redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain what 'status' encompasses, what the response looks like, or how the two identifiers relate. For a status tool, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both required parameters (device_id and esp_device_id), so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get status of an ESPConnect device' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the ESPConnect vendor, and from espconnect_send_command and espconnect_ota_update by being a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as iot_device_status, tuya_device_status, or espconnect_list_devices. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Trigger OTA compilation' without explaining side effects, whether it performs a full OTA update, or if it requires network connectivity. The term 'OTA compilation' is ambiguous and lacks detail about the actual action's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb, and every word contributes to the stated purpose. Length is appropriate for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description should explain return values, prerequisites, and side effects. It does none of these. The tool triggers a compilation, but the description omits what the agent can expect (e.g., success/failure output, async behavior) and under what conditions it is valid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (device_id and esphome_device). The description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters relate to the compilation process. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Trigger OTA compilation for an ESPHome device' uses a specific verb (Trigger) and resource (OTA compilation), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like esphome_get_states or esphome_call_service. It unambiguously identifies the operation's focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be online), nor does it exclude scenarios like using esphome_call_service for running services. The description leaves usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral implications. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, such as potential performance impact, optional memory capture, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain expected return values, error scenarios, or the relationship between device_id and vm_id, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no further parameter insight, aligning with the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a snapshot of a VM on ESXi' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It is distinct from sibling tools like esxi_list_snapshots, esxi_delete_snapshot, and esxi_revert_snapshot, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as VM existence or host accessibility, nor does it reference related snapshot operations (list, delete, revert) as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the literal action. It fails to mention that deleting a snapshot is irreversible, that it may affect VM state, or whether specific permissions are required. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and directly states the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description. It lacks essential context such as expected outcomes, error conditions, or preconditions like power state. Given the destructive nature, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear enough descriptions (VM identifier, host device ID, snapshot identifier). The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents the params adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and unambiguous resource ('snapshot from a VM on ESXi'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like esxi_create_snapshot, esxi_revert_snapshot, and esxi_list_snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The usage is only implied by the tool name and verb, which is not enough for an agent to make a confident selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the command can be read-only or destructive, what output format to expect (raw CLI text), or any permissions or safety considerations. This is a significant gap for a generic command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially risky raw command execution tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the nature of the output, command scope, or behavioral limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, the tool is under-specified for an agent to use it responsibly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a FortiOS CLI command via SSH, using a specific verb (execute), resource (FortiOS CLI command), and method (SSH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that mostly retrieve structured data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many specific 'get_*' tools or other execute_command tools. It does not indicate whether this is a fallback for uncovered commands or for general troubleshooting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but it does not mention potential large data volume, permission requirements, or any side effects. The description adds no context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain the return format, whether a filter is typical, or what constitutes an 'active' session. This leaves the agent with significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, such as filter syntax or how the optional filter interacts with the result set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('active sessions/connections') on the Fortigate platform. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortigate_get_policies or fortigate_get_routes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or why one would choose this over other networking status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing that commands like 'AT+UART' may alter device settings, or that the response is raw text. This is a significant transparency gap for a low-level command sender.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and omits unnecessary information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a well-described schema, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention return value format, potential side effects, or when to prefer this low-level tool over higher-level hf_* operations. Significant gaps remain for a tool that sends arbitrary commands.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for all three parameters (command, timeout, device_id). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('raw AT command to Hi-Flying device'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling hf_* status/read tools like hf_get_network or hf_reboot, though overlap with hf_serial_send is not explicitly addressed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where raw AT commands are needed, nor does it point to higher-level hf_* tools for common operations, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only list but does not explain the role of the required device_id (e.g., whether it filters flavors by that device or is used for authentication). No mention of pagination, ordering, or potential failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one required parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify the parameter's significance and what the return value contains. It does neither. The reference to 'available' is vague, and the role of device_id is unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the sole parameter device_id ('OpenStack device ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema already documents it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists available VM flavors in OpenStack, using a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('flavors (sizes)'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like openstack_list_servers or openstack_list_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing the required device_id parameter or how this fits into the broader OpenStack workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List routers', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain any side effects, required authentication, or the meaning of the required device_id parameter. The minimal wording adds no context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a required parameter (device_id) that seems inconsistent with a simple 'list routers' operation, and the description does not explain this. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains or how the parameter affects results, but it does not. Overall, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the single parameter 'device_id' with 'OpenStack device ID', so baseline is 3. However, the description does not clarify why listing routers requires a device_id, leaving a potential semantic gap about how the parameter filters or scopes the list. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'routers in OpenStack (Neutron)', making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other OpenStack resources (networks, subnets, floating IPs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other OpenStack list tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where this list is preferred over alternatives like openstack_list_networks or openstack_list_subnets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get status') but discloses nothing about potential failure modes, required permissions, or side effects. There is no mention of what 'status' entails or whether the operation is safe. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately concise for a simple status-checking tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain what the status response contains or any important context. It only states 'Get status' without elaborating on the return format, possible statuses, or edge cases. For a simple tool this is a notable gap, especially given the absence of structural metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description (node, vmid, device_id). The tool description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Per evaluation rules, the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional param guidance is offered in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get status of a specific VM on Proxmox' clearly specifies the action (get status), the resource (a specific VM), and the platform (Proxmox). It is distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_list_vms (which lists VMs) and proxmox_container_status (which targets containers), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for individual VMs only, nor does it direct users to sibling tools for containers or node status. The usage context is only implied by the name and minimal description, but no explicit exclusions or recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies non-destructiveness but does not confirm behavioral safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any operational context. It only says 'List running applications/packages' without specifying output format, detail level, or behavior on failure, making it incomplete for an AI agent choosing among many similar NAS commands.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (device_id is described as 'QNAP NAS device ID'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists running applications/packages on QNAP NAS. The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qnap_get_volumes or synology_get_packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other QNAP listing commands, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get power consumption data', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not clarify whether the data is real-time or historical, what units are returned, or whether any device-side interaction occurs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the action and target. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should help explain what data will be returned. It only says 'power consumption data', which is vague and does not specify units, format, or whether it is instantaneous or cumulative. Given the tool's simplicity, this lack of detail leaves a significant practical gap for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters (device_id and sonoff_device_id) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('power consumption data from a Sonoff power monitoring device'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonoff_list_devices, sonoff_device_status, and sonoff_toggle, which handle listing, status, and control respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special privileges, whether it clears the buffer, or what kind of output is returned. The agent lacks critical behavioral context for a log-related tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only seven words to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. No wasted verbiage or redundant phrases are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks contextual completeness for a network device tool. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'log buffer' contains, how output is formatted, whether logs are filtered by severity, or whether the command affects the switch state. For an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is insufficient beyond a basic name-level understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (device_id and lines), achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters; it simply relies on the schema. No further semantic elaboration is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Show'), the resource ('log buffer'), and the scope ('on a switch'), distinguishing it from sibling switch_show_* tools like switch_show_interfaces or switch_show_vlans. It is a specific and unambiguous statement of what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which it should be preferred over similar switch show commands. The lack of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get video input status,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose what the status contains, whether it is safe to call frequently, or any potential side effects. No additional context is given beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, with no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what 'video input status' includes or what the return format looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result, but it remains sufficient for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter device_id, which is already described as 'Dahua NVR device ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description does not compensate or enhance the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get video input status of channels on a Dahua NVR' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('video input status of channels'), and a device scope ('Dahua NVR'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like dahua_nvr_recording_status or dahua_nvr_get_channels, which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context like whether to prefer this over dss_channel_status or other status tools. There is zero usage direction beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. This is minimal for a status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the recording status output looks like or any edge cases. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of return value information leaves some incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with both device_id and channel_id described accurately in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves recording status for a channel in Dahua DSS, using the specific verb 'get' and identifying both the resource type and platform. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dss_channel_status and dahua_nvr_recording_status by explicitly mentioning 'recording status' and 'Dahua DSS'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools exist for DSS channel status and NVR recording status, the description does not mention them or any criteria for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or whether data is live or cached. It doesn't contradict annotations, but lacks behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what 'server information' includes (e.g., version, uptime, storage). It doesn't. But given the simple one-parameter tool, the description is partially adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; the single parameter 'device_id' has a description ('Dahua DSS device ID') in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Dahua DSS Pro/Express server information', distinguishing it from device-level information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dss_device_info, which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dss_device_info or dss_list_devices. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It only indicates a read operation via 'get' but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or response characteristics. This is minimal transparency for a device interaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundant information. It is well structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately conveys the basic function but lacks information about the response format, required device state, or when to prefer this tool over siblings. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is not fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, merely restating the device context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all entity states from an ESPHome device, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like esphome_device_info and esphome_get_logs by focusing on 'all entity states'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as esphome_device_info or esphome_call_service. The description lacks exclusions or context about the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states 'Restart a VM' but does not disclose that restart is a mutating operation causing downtime, that graceful=false performs a hard reset, or any other side effects. The description provides minimal insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word is necessary, with no redundant content or excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage, the description is somewhat adequate, but it does not mention the expected return value or whether the call is synchronous. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about post-restart behavior or response format, leaving moderate gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (vm_id, graceful, device_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter context, but the schema already handles semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Restart' with the resource 'VM on ESXi', clearly identifying the tool's action. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_power_on, esxi_power_off, and esxi_suspend_vm, which have different verbs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use restart versus other power actions (power on/off/suspend), or when to set graceful to true/false. The description offers no context or exclusions for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on authentication requirements, output format, pagination, or whether the returned routing table includes both IPv4 and IPv6 routes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, resource, and context, which is appropriately concise for a simple read-only tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action, making it minimally viable, but it lacks any detail about the returned data or potential caveats. A bit more elaboration on the routing table contents would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'device_id', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('routing table') and scope ('Fortigate'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling Fortigate tools like fortigate_get_policies or fortigate_get_interfaces, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name for selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it supports hex (space-separated) or text data, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the tool waits for a response, error behavior, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that immediately state the action and then provide the allowable data formats. No filler words, and the structure front-loads the primary intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple send operation but lacks information about return behavior, response handling, or error conditions. The timeout parameter in the schema implies a response is expected, but the description does not confirm it. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the data format examples. The description repeats the hex/text support but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends data through a serial port via Hi-Flying TCP transparent mode, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hf_at_command, but the narrow scope makes the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hf_at_command or hf_set_serial_config. The description only states what it does, not in which scenarios it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is safe, requires specific permissions, or what side effects (if any) exist. It gives basic context but lacks explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool with minimal parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not explain what the output represents (e.g., what 'status' means) or potential errors, leaving some gaps for a read-only status checker.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents device_id. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names, and the tool description itself gives no extra semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks TCP link status of a Hi-Flying serial server, using a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar status-checking tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, but never mentions prerequisites, conditions, or other tools that might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'via SSH' but does not disclose return format, permissions required, potential destructiveness of arbitrary commands, or that the command is executed as-is with no confirmation. This is a significant gap for a command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly enriched with an example or cautionary note without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a command execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and arbitrary command complexity, the description is too minimal. It does not address what the response looks like, how the command is delivered (e.g., SSH session handling), or any prerequisites beyond a device ID. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'command' and 'device_id' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents each parameter clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Execute a RouterOS command via SSH'. It identifies the resource (RouterOS) and the method (SSH), which distinguishes it from sibling command-execution tools like iot_execute_command or fortigate_execute_cli by scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the mikrotik_get_* tools for read-only queries. Usage is implied as a generic command runner, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states it lists interfaces via REST API, but doesn't disclose read-only behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The 'via REST API' hint is minimal and doesn't provide meaningful behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that clearly states the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail about the output shape or what 'traffic stats' specifically includes. More contextual information about the returned data would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a basic interface listing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'device_id', which is described as 'Mikrotik device ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is already sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'interfaces with traffic stats'. It distinguishes itself from sibling Mikrotik tools like mikrotik_get_routes and mikrotik_get_firewall by focusing on interfaces and including traffic statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The only context is the tool name and the generic statement of capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and resource, omitting details such as return format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without waste, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but it lacks an output schema or annotations. The description does not explain the structure of the returned 'registration table' or any edge cases, making it minimally complete but not rich enough for complex decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'device_id' with the description 'Mikrotik device ID', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage means the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get wireless client registration table from Mikrotik' uses a specific verb (Get) and a clear resource (wireless client registration table). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes, which target other resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only context is the tool name and sibling list, which implies but does not explicitly state usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'with resource stats' which hints at the output, but it fails to explain why a required 'device_id' is needed for a list operation. This is a significant behavioral gap; it does not disclose whether the tool lists all hypervisors or only those associated with a specific device, nor does it mention any read-only nature or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence (7 words) that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a simple list tool without an output schema, the description must clarify what the tool returns and why it requires a device_id. The phrase 'with resource stats' touches on output but leaves the mandatory parameter unexplained. This ambiguity makes the description incomplete for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with the device_id description 'OpenStack device ID', but both the schema and description are vague about the parameter's role. The description does not clarify why device_id is required for listing hypervisors, so it adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List hypervisors in OpenStack with resource stats' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (hypervisors in OpenStack), adding a specific detail (resource stats). It distinguishes the tool from other OpenStack list tools such as openstack_list_servers and openstack_list_flavors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description: it is for listing hypervisors, which is distinct from other sibling OpenStack tools. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List networks' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe what the response contains, whether it requires special permissions, how the device_id parameter affects the result, or any pagination/limitation behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'List networks in OpenStack (Neutron)', which is concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted wording. For the simplicity of the operation, this length is appropriate and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential contextual details. It does not explain what the returned list contains, why a device_id is required, or any scope limitations. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by providing at least a brief note on the response format or the purpose of the device_id. The description is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the parameter 'device_id' is described as 'OpenStack device ID'. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any context about how it is used. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (networks in OpenStack). The parenthetical '(Neutron)' further clarifies the OpenStack networking service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openstack_list_subnets or openstack_list_routers. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Unlike the calibration example that names a sibling tool for filtered searches, this description simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues about selection criteria or exclusions. The agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar 'list' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get' but does not disclose what the response contains, whether special permissions are required, or any side effects. This minimal statement is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a high score for structure and efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about the output or operational details. Without an output schema, it would benefit from specifying what 'network configuration' includes (e.g., interfaces, IP addresses). It is adequate but minimal, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters ('Node name' and 'Proxmox server device ID'), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 applies since the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('network configuration of a Proxmox node'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling Proxmox tools like proxmox_get_nodes or proxmox_node_status by focusing on the network configuration aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related tasks, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'gets' status and lists specific metrics, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention authentication requirements, or describe what happens in error cases, though the verb and content are 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming three expected fields (CPU, memory, uptime), but it does not specify the return format, error behavior, or how this tool relates to other Proxmox status tools. It is adequate for a simple getter but leaves room for more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (device_id and node) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed status of a Proxmox node' with explicit fields (CPU, memory, uptime). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like proxmox_get_nodes (which lists nodes) and proxmox_vm_status (VM-specific). It does not explicitly contrast with other Proxmox tools, but the resource and scope are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_get_nodes or proxmox_cluster_resources. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not describe what types of logs are included, the format of the response, pagination, or any authentication requirements. It merely restates the purpose without adding behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks context about what the logs contain, how the count parameter works, or the nature of the return data. 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no information about parameters. However, the schema already documents device_id and count sufficiently, so the description does not need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get system logs from QNAP NAS' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like qnap_system_info or qnap_get_volumes by focusing on logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar tasks. The only implied context is that it is for retrieving QNAP system logs, which is implicit from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List shared folders' but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what information is returned, permission requirements, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in when to use it and what to expect from the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'device_id' with a description, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'shared folders' and scope 'QNAP NAS'. This distinguishes it from similar tools like Synology's get_shared_folders and other QNAP listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any contextual prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a state-changing operation but does not specify idempotency, side effects, permissions, or asynchronous behavior. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks usage context and behavioral transparency. Given no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Toggle') and clearly identifies the resource ('Sonoff device') and the action ('on or off'). It distinguishes from sibling read-only tools like sonoff_device_status and sonoff_list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other Sonoff tools such as sonoff_device_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of output format, required privileges, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure similar to the 'update_drive' example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or return details, the agent has limited context about what the output will look like. This is a clear gap but acceptable for a basic show operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Switch device ID' clearly documented. The description does not add anything beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show port security status on a switch' uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('port security status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_show_interfaces and switch_show_vlans. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when port security status is relevant or when another switch_show_* tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'List installed packages' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or what the returned data looks like. While 'List' implies a non-destructive query, this is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter list operation, the description is largely sufficient for invocation: the agent knows the input and the action. However, without an output schema or any indication of return structure, and with weak behavioral transparency, the context is not fully complete. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'device_id' with a clear description ('Synology NAS device ID'), and the tool description adds no further parameter-level detail. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('installed packages') on a Synology NAS, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like synology_get_storage or synology_get_network by focusing specifically on packages, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like synology_get_docker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to see installed packages on a Synology NAS, but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use case is fairly obvious from the name and description, so it meets the 'implied usage' level but nothing more.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as return format, potential errors, or whether all attributes or a subset are returned. This is minimal and does not add beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the action immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with a fully described schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is reasonable, but it could be improved with context on when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions ('ThingsBoard server device ID' and 'ThingsBoard device UUID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('device attributes') and clearly indicates the system (ThingsBoard). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tb_device_telemetry (telemetry vs attributes) and tb_list_devices (list vs single get).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'all or filtered by device' but is ambiguous given that device_id is required in the schema, and it does not disclose pagination behavior or what 'all' means. This creates confusion rather than transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the required device_id semantics relative to 'all', pagination defaults, or what the return structure looks like. The ambiguity around 'all' vs. required device_id is a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond summarizing that filtering by device is possible, which is already evident from the schema's required device_id and optional device_code.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'video channels in Dahua DSS', and clarifies scope with 'all or filtered by device'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dss_list_devices (devices) and dss_channel_status (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing channels, optionally filtered by device, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It offers context on filtering but lacks exclusion criteria relative to other DSS tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing important behavioral details such as idempotency, whether the operation waits for the guest OS, permission requirements, or error behavior for already-powered-on VMs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It achieves maximum conciseness while maintaining clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, asynchronous behavior, or interaction with VM state, leaving critical context unexplained for a power-mutating operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both 'vm_id' and 'device_id' described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Power on a VM on ESXi' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like esxi_power_off, esxi_restart_vm, and esxi_suspend_vm by indicating the exact lifecycle operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool to power on a VM. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions like the VM being powered off.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'revert', failing to mention that this is a destructive operation that discards current VM state, may require the VM to be powered off, or other consequences. Minimal behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the essential purpose. No filler or redundant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a very brief description. It lacks important context such as reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., VM power state), and potential data loss, making it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all three parameters (100%), so the schema already provides the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Revert a VM to a specific snapshot on ESXi'. It uses a specific verb (revert) and resource (VM to snapshot), distinguishing it from sibling snapshot tools like create or delete snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one wants to revert a VM to a snapshot, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With sibling tools available, explicit guidance would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what specific interface configuration fields are returned. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by clearly identifying the tool's purpose despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what 'interface configuration' includes and what the return format is. It does neither. The tool is simple, but the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent on expected outputs or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a description for the only parameter (device_id: 'Fortigate device ID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic value, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get interface configuration from Fortigate' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (interface configuration) on a specific platform (Fortigate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fortigate_get_policies and fortigate_get_routes by the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when Fortigate interface configuration is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mikrotik_get_interfaces or switch_show_interfaces. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('Get ... status') but does not describe return format, whether multiple tunnels are returned, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the status output contains, how to interpret the response, or any caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to make the tool fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('Fortigate device ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets IPSec VPN tunnel status from Fortigate devices. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IPSec VPN tunnel status'), and the mention of 'Fortigate' distinguishes it from the generic sibling tool 'vpn_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the resource and device (IPSec VPN tunnel status from Fortigate), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vpn_status' or other fortigate_* tools. No exclusions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not describe whether it queries the device live, how it handles offline devices, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no extraneous words and is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, likely a simple getter), the description is mostly complete. It identifies the resource and key return fields (firmware, MAC address), though it lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context. This is acceptable for a simple informational tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (device_id) with a clear description ('Hi-Flying device ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('Hi-Flying serial server info'), with specific examples of what info is returned (firmware, MAC address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hf_get_network or hf_get_wifi, which target specific subsystems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hf_get_serial_config or hf_get_network. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Set' indicating a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., immediate effect, possible disconnect), prerequisites (device must be online), or return behavior. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unknown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Set serial port parameters on Hi-Flying device.' It communicates the core action clearly with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what response the agent should expect, whether the settings persist, require a reboot, or if the device must be in a certain state. The schema covers parameter details but not the behavioral context needed to safely invoke and interpret the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters (baud, port, parity, data_bits, device_id, stop_bits). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource ('serial port parameters') and target ('Hi-Flying device'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hf_get_serial_config (get vs set) and hf_at_command (direct AT commands).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: you use this when you need to configure serial parameters on a Hi-Flying device. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like hf_get_serial_config for verification, or hf_at_command for low-level serial commands. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, error behaviors, or whether the operation is truly non-destructive. This is a minimal description that leaves behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the return value looks like, any error conditions, or when this tool is preferred over sibling tools. For a simple get operation, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (device_id and section) having descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('running configuration') with a clear context ('from a network device'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific data (e.g., switch_show_interfaces) or device management operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need the running configuration of a network device, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like switch_show_* or iot_device_status. It lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists and filters devices, but does not mention pagination, maximum results, authentication requirements, or whether the list is real-time or cached. As a read-only operation, more context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and mentions all filter capabilities without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: listing all devices and filtering. It lacks detail on return format or default behavior, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive context. It is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (tag, type, filter). The description merely restates these filter options without adding extra examples, constraints, or interaction details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all devices in the inventory and specifies filtering options (type, tag, search text). This distinguishes it from vendor-specific list tools like sonoff_list_devices or tb_list_devices, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonoff_list_devices or tb_list_devices. It doesn't mention whether this tool covers all IoT device types or if specific vendor tools should be preferred for vendor-specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description provides no annotations, so it carries full burden. It only states the data retrieved, with no information about output format, pagination, or side effects, though the 'get' verb implies read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is useful; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no output schema and no annotations, so description must explain return expectations. It only covers the basic operation, leaving output format and edge cases unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters (device_id, chain) with descriptions. Description adds no semantic information, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' plus resource 'firewall filter and NAT rules' clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming a specific Mikrotik resource, similar to other mikrotik_get_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies usage based on the resource name, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'List block storage volumes' without explaining the role of the required device_id, whether it lists all volumes or filters by device, or any other behavior like pagination or read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the purpose without any waste. It is well-structured and 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear, the description is incomplete given the required device_id parameter and no output schema. The ambiguity of how device_id relates to listing volumes leaves a significant gap, especially with many sibling list tools that might have different scopes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds nothing about parameters. The schema description 'OpenStack device ID' is vague, but the description doesn't clarify it either, so it does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists block storage volumes in OpenStack (Cinder), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openstack_list_servers or openstack_list_images by specifying the exact OpenStack service (Cinder).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool suggestions. Usage is implied by the clear purpose, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over other list tools, making it only minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Get status' which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe the returned status fields, permissions, or error behavior. This is sparse on behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the status contains or what the response looks like. For a simple get-status tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (node, vmid, device_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond referencing the target container.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a specific LXC container') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like proxmox_vm_status (VMs) and proxmox_list_containers (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the status of a single LXC container is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention exclusions. The name provides context, but there is no direct comparison to proxmox_vm_status or proxmox_list_containers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'list all devices' but the schema includes page and limit parameters, suggesting pagination, which is not mentioned. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there is no information about response 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, ideal for quick scanning by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination behavior, the requirement to specify a device_id for the target server, and what the return data looks like. The phrase 'list all devices' overpromises given the pagination parameters, which could lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantics about how page/limit affect the 'all devices' promise or why device_id is required, but it does not need to since the schema is already informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all devices registered in ThingsBoard, specifying the platform (ThingsBoard) and the action (list all devices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other platforms, such as sonoff_list_devices or dss_list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a device inventory from ThingsBoard, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over generic alternatives like iot_list_devices, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema shows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a control (non-read-only) operation, but it does not mention potential side effects such as physical camera movement, failure conditions, or whether the command is asynchronous. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, lists example actions, and contains no redundant 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a control tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on command syntax, expected results, or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not explain the tool's overall behavior beyond its basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description mentions action types but adds no extra detail beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Control' and resource 'PTZ camera connected to a Dahua NVR', and lists example actions (pan, tilt, zoom, preset). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like dahua_nvr_system_info and dahua_nvr_channel_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for controlling a PTZ camera but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention exclusions or compare to sibling tools, which would be helpful given the presence of other Dahua NVR tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'List all networks and port groups on ESXi'. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Even for a list operation, the minimal disclosure leaves the agent guessing about safety and behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list operation, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not explain return structure or any caveats, and with no output schema or annotations, the agent must infer behavior. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (device_id) as 'ESXi host device ID', and the description adds no additional semantics about how the parameter is used. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all networks and port groups on ESXi, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like esxi_list_vms and esxi_list_datastores by explicitly naming the network-related scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs to see networks/port groups on an ESXi host, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context from siblings helps, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral characteristics. It only says 'via REST API' which is a minor technical detail. There is no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or any side effects—important for a networking device query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose without filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description and schema together cover the core functionality, but the lack of behavioral disclosures (e.g., whether it returns all policies by default, rate limits) leaves some gaps. It is adequate but not rich in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters: device_id and policy_id, including the optional semantics of policy_id ('lists all if omitted'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('firewall policies from Fortigate'), and explicitly mentions it uses the REST API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortigate_get_routes or fortigate_get_interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description—users should call this tool when they need firewall policy information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Reboot Hi-Flying serial server' without revealing that rebooting is disruptive — e.g., it drops active sessions, causes downtime, or takes time to recover. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Reboot', and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, clear schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and target adequately. However, it omits the disruptive consequences of a reboot (downtime, session loss), which would be valuable context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It is the bare minimum viable description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as the input schema already documents device_id as 'Hi-Flying device ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond implying the device is a serial server, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Reboot' with a specific resource 'Hi-Flying serial server', clearly stating the tool's action and target. Among sibling tools like hf_set_serial_config, hf_get_network, and hf_at_command, none claim to reboot, so this description effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the verb 'Reboot' — the tool is used when a Hi-Flying serial server needs to be restarted. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets statuses and optionally filters, without mentioning return format, pagination, authentication, or any side effects. The term 'health dashboard' adds some context but does not disclose specific 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the optional filter behavior. Every word is useful, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two optional filters, the description is adequate but has gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what fields 'status' includes or how it differs from sibling tools for specific device status. It is minimally viable but lacks context for an agent to fully anticipate the response or selection nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('Filter by tag' and 'Filter by device type'), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that filtering is optional, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('status of all devices'), and adds a clarifying context ('health dashboard'). It distinguishes from siblings like iot_device_status (singular device status) and iot_list_devices (list devices without status), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for an overall health overview and mentions optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like iot_device_status for a single device or iot_list_devices for a raw device list. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation, which is positive, and clarifies the projects/tenants terminology. However, it does not disclose any access requirements, scope limitations (e.g., domain/project scope), or potential response traits beyond 'list'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is thin. It doesn't explain why device_id is needed or any scope/domain details for the project list. While not broken, it relies heavily on the parameter name and the tool's name to convey meaning, which 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter device_id with 'OpenStack device ID'. The description adds no additional meaning or context about how this parameter is used, which is acceptable given the schema handles it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List projects/tenants' with the specific resource 'OpenStack (Keystone)'. This distinguishes it from sibling OpenStack tools that list servers, flavors, or other resources, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites beyond the required device_id, nor any indication of how the device_id relates to the OpenStack instance. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential requirements (e.g., permissions), return format, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no irrelevant words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about return values or edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'device_id') having descriptive titles. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate or enhance the parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists QEMU virtual machines on a Proxmox node, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('QEMU virtual machines'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_list_containers and proxmox_vm_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (use to list VMs on a node) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as proxmox_list_containers for containers, so the context is minimal and not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose additional details like return format, required permissions, or any potential side effects. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, immediately clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but could be improved by indicating what specific network configuration data is returned (e.g., interfaces, IP addresses). Without an output schema, a bit more detail would help an agent anticipate the result, but it is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter (device_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'network interface configuration from QNAP NAS'. This distinguishes it from similar tools for other platforms (e.g., synology_get_network, hf_get_network) and other QNAP tools like qnap_system_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context for selecting it over similar network configuration tools or state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, units, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that accesses system metrics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target without any fluff or repetition. It earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description names the resource categories (CPU, memory, disk) but does not specify whether the output is percentages, raw values, or a snapshot vs. historical data. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent, though the core functionality is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the only parameter (device_id) as 'QNAP NAS device ID' (100% coverage). The description adds the context that the usage is from QNAP NAS, but it does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('CPU, memory, and disk usage from QNAP NAS'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling QNAP tools like qnap_system_info or qnap_get_volumes by focusing on resource usage metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need CPU, memory, or disk usage metrics), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as qnap_system_info or qnap_get_disks. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only 'show' operation but adds no additional context such as required permissions, output size, or potential latency. It essentially repeats the tool name's implication without deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what the output looks like, whether it includes all VLANs or only configured ones, or any platform specifics. While adequate for a basic read tool, it leaves some gaps given the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (device_id with description 'Switch device ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, not explaining how the device ID is used or any format requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'VLAN configuration' on a switch, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_show_interfaces or switch_show_mac_table. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when VLAN configuration is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from other show commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get system logs' and provides no context about log format, pagination, time range, or read-only guarantees. The count parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not explain pagination limits or the nature of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what the returned logs contain, whether they are real-time or historical, or any filtering capabilities beyond count. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('device_id' and 'count' with default). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('system logs'), and the target platform ('Synology NAS'). It distinguishes this from sibling Synology tools like synology_get_storage or synology_get_disks, and from log tools for other vendors like qnap_get_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you need logs from a Synology NAS. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how it compares to other log tools, or what type of logs (e.g., system vs. application) it retrieves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' configuration, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the NAS must be online. This is a significant gap for a tool that may have side effects or access issues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of about seven words, front-loaded with the verb 'get'. It contains no filler and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description omits any indication of the format or scope of the returned network configuration. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete by mentioning what fields are returned (e.g., IP, netmask, gateway).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id), which is described as 'Synology NAS device ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'get' and clearly identifies the resource 'network interface configuration' and the target platform 'Synology NAS'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qnap_get_network or proxmox_get_network.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs Synology NAS network interface configuration, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling comparisons are not mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and provides no details about read-only status, output format, pagination, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent to infer safety and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient and contains no unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of the response structure leaves gaps. The description does not clarify why `device_id` is needed or what information about scenes will be returned, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter `device_id` with a description ('Tuya cloud account device ID'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource ('smart scenes/automations from Tuya'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tuya_list_devices and tuya_device_status. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the verb 'List', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tuya_trigger_scene or tuya_list_devices. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation and notes that capacity/usage are included, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the action, resource, and included data are all specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate: it states what is listed and what details are returned. Minor gaps like output shape or edge cases are not critical given the low complexity, so a 4 is reasonable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents device_id as 'ESXi host device ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'datastores on ESXi', and the returned data 'capacity and usage'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_list_vms and esxi_list_networks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the required device_id. It does not explain when this should be preferred over other esxi_* listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves configuration but does not mention whether it is read-only, what happens if the device is unreachable, or any side effects like opening the port. This lack of behavioral context is a gap for a tool that interacts with hardware.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the key configuration fields. No redundant information or filler exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only 2 parameters fully described in the schema. The description names the fields returned (baud rate, data bits, parity), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. While more context about potential errors or output format would improve completeness, the description is enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters: device_id and port are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the port parameter's optional nature or how device_id is resolved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets serial port configuration from a Hi-Flying device and explicitly lists the fields (baud rate, data bits, parity). This specific verb+resource+fields combination distinguishes it from siblings like hf_set_serial_config which sets configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to read serial port settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hf_get_network or hf_get_wifi. There is no mention of when not to use it or any alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'connects to device to check,' indicating a live network action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, timeouts, or what happens if the device is unreachable, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the key action and includes a parenthetical clarification. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must explain what 'detailed status' returns. It does not specify the fields, structure, or possible values, leaving the agent unsure about what information it will receive. While the purpose is clear, the lack of return-value information makes the description incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'device_id' with a description ('Device ID from inventory') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed status of a specific device,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like iot_list_devices (listing) and iot_all_status (all devices) by emphasizing 'specific device' and noting it connects to the device, which adds unique context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: for checking the status of a single device. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as iot_all_status or iot_test_connection, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The one-line description offers context but no comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it queries local or remote serial ports, or possible error/empty conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is sufficient in context. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or that availability may be OS-dependent, but these are optional additions for a tool this simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies for tools without parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available serial ports on the system'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list devices, alarms, or network interfaces. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iot_list_devices or sonoff_list_devices. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It simply states 'Get IP routing table', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, prerequisites, or what the returned data contains. This lacks the context needed for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence consisting of six words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description provides enough to understand its basic function. It lacks details about the return format or any additional behavioral constraints, but for a straightforward read operation, the brevity is acceptable. This is slightly above minimum viability given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter (device_id: 'Mikrotik device ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IP routing table') along with the platform ('Mikrotik'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings like mikrotik_get_interfaces and mikrotik_get_firewall by specifying the routing table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs the IP routing table from a Mikrotik device, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of related tools or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists subnets, which implies a read-only operation, but adds no details on pagination, authentication, or side effects. This is minimally adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and instantly understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not clarify why device_id is required for listing subnets, which is non-obvious since subnets typically belong to networks, not devices. With no output schema, the return format is also unstated. This leaves a gap that could confuse an agent selecting or invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter device_id with 'OpenStack device ID', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'subnets in OpenStack (Neutron)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like openstack_list_networks or openstack_list_servers. The mention of Neutron adds useful system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Usage is implied by the description as a straightforward listing operation, but without any exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the returned fields, but does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication needs, or whether it queries the device live. Adequate for a simple info tool but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no redundant wording. The action and key output fields are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and the primary data fields returned. It lacks explicit return format or error handling, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (device_id) with a description, and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves QNAP NAS system information with specific fields (model, firmware, uptime). It is distinct from other QNAP tools like qnap_get_volumes or qnap_get_disks, but does not explicitly differentiate from qnap_resource_usage or synology_system_info, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use this tool (when needing system-level info), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose for other system details. It provides minimal context for an agent to select this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the function. It does not disclose whether the command is read-only, requires special privileges, or what the output format is. The word 'show' suggests non-destructive but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of what the output resembles or when to use it, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter device_id is fully described in the schema as 'Switch device ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show') and the target resource ('ARP table on a switch'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like switch_show_mac_table and switch_show_interfaces. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting the ARP table, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like switch_show_neighbors or switch_show_mac_table. There is no guidance on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, that it triggers a CLI command on the device, or what the return payload looks like. It lacks any behavioral detail beyond the verb and resource.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect in return (e.g., a table of interfaces and their status). The description omits this, and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects, leaving an incomplete picture for a network operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for device_id ('Switch device ID'), so the schema already defines the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'interface status/brief', specifically scoped to 'Cisco or HP switch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like switch_show_vlans or switch_show_mac_table, and also from similar tools for other vendors such as fortigate_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use when you need interface status/brief on a Cisco or HP switch. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the vendor and resource scope make the intended usage evident among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and lists sample response attributes, which provides some context. However, it does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any side effects (though none are obvious for a system info tool). This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and example return fields. It is concise, free of fluff, and every word earns its place. No restructuring or trimming is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool does and what it returns (model, DSM version, uptime). It does not describe the full return structure or any additional fields, but the examples serve as a sufficient guide. The lack of annotations and output schema is mitigated by the simplicity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter (device_id) with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., format, required permissions), so it does not improve upon the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a concrete resource ('Synology NAS system information'), and enumerates example fields (model, DSM version, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it as a general system info tool among the sibling tools, including synology_system_utilization which likely focuses on performance metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as synology_get_network or synology_system_utilization. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions; usage is only implicitly inferred from the tool name and general description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, does not mention permissions, rate limits, or the return format, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, the lack of any behavioral details (e.g., snapshot vs. average) and no output format hints leaves minor gaps, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major deficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (device_id) with the description 'Synology NAS device ID'. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('CPU, memory, network, and disk utilization') on a specific target ('Synology NAS'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like synology_system_info or synology_get_network.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for utilization metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like synology_get_storage or synology_get_network, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It does disclose the read-only nature via 'Get', but provides no additional behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, or dependency on device availability. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with a complete schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure that would help an agent choose between this and similar status/list tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'channels' in 'Dahua DSS', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like dss_list_channels (list channels) and dss_device_online_status (device status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when channel online/offline status is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over dss_list_channels or dss_device_online_status, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it retrieves information, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or mention any prerequisites, permissions, or lack of side effects. This is a minimal indicator of safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and the key fields. No unnecessary words are used.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the main data returned (CPU, memory, version), but does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or additional behavioral context. It is adequate for a minimal tool but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes device_id as 'ESXi host device ID', and the description adds no further parameter context. With 100% schema_description_coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'ESXi host information' and enumerates the exact data returned (CPU, memory, version). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_list_vms and esxi_get_vm, which target virtual machines rather than the host.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: when you need ESXi host details such as CPU, memory, or version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Get' phrasing gives clear context for agent selection among the large sibling toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'List all' implies a read-only, unfiltered operation, but it does not disclose the return structure, any pagination behavior, or error handling, all of which are relevant for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence packed into the essential function: 'List all snapshots of a VM on ESXi'. It is perfectly front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with only two well-documented parameters. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not specify what snapshot information is returned (e.g., names, IDs, timestamps), nor any potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (vm_id and device_id), both clearly labeled as 'VM identifier' and 'ESXi host device ID'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the relationship between VM and host, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'snapshots of a VM', explicitly naming the domain (ESXi). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like esxi_create_snapshot, esxi_delete_snapshot, and esxi_revert_snapshot by being the read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: the tool should be used when one needs to enumerate all snapshots of a specific VM. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use create/delete/revert snapshot tools instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a 'get' operation, which implies non-destructive read behavior, and lists CPU and memory as examples. However, it does not describe the return format, any potential permissions required, or additional resources included in 'etc.', so transparency is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the primary purpose and examples, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter structure and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks detail on the exact metrics returned or any units. It is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the response shape, though it is adequate for a basic status query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'device_id' with the description 'Fortigate device ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get system resource usage from Fortigate (CPU, memory, etc.)' uses a specific verb 'get' and a clear resource 'system resource usage', with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling Fortigate tools that focus on policies, routes, interfaces, VPN, or sessions, as none of those cover system resource usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when system resource utilization is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison with similar status tools, leaving the context of selection to the agent's interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed info' only implies a read operation, but it does not state that it is safe/non-destructive, does not describe what details are included, or mention any error conditions or special constraints. Minimal added transparency beyond the core purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence that gets straight to the point. No redundant words or filler. It is concise yet informative enough for the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, but the description does not explain what 'detailed info' actually includes, and the joint use of both device_id and server_id is not clarified (why are both needed?). The description is adequate for a basic get operation but leaves gaps about the response content and parameter relationship.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'device_id' and 'server_id' are clearly defined in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameters, leaving them to the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed info of a specific server/instance', and the scope 'in OpenStack'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openstack_list_servers (lists servers) and openstack_server_action (performs actions), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Get detailed info of a specific server/instance' implies when to use it (when you need details for one server rather than a list). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with list_servers is clear. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose output shape, whether stopped containers are included, or any permissions needed. It is not misleading, but thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary details, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description would benefit from stating what information is returned (e.g., IDs, names, statuses). As written, it is minimally functional but lacks some operational detail that an agent would need for subsequent actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'List' as a specific verb, identifies the resource 'LXC containers' and the scope 'on a Proxmox node', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like proxmox_list_vms and proxmox_container_status. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as proxmox_list_vms or proxmox_cluster_resources. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and lists the data types returned, but does not disclose the output format, potential prerequisites, or error behavior. This 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the types of data returned (SMART, health, temperature), which gives some context about the output. However, the lack of an output schema and minimal detail about the exact response structure limits completeness. It is adequate for a simple get tool but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (device_id) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'physical disk info', and the context 'from Synology NAS'. It further specifies the type of info (SMART, health, temperature), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like synology_get_storage or qnap_get_disks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when disk health information is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as synology_get_storage. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It uses 'Get' which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free operation or any error conditions. For a simple info query, this is acceptable but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly states purpose and key output fields. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists expected data points. It could mention that the device must be reachable or that it queries live device, but for the simplicity, it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id). The description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves system information for Dahua NVR/DVR devices, naming specific fields (model, firmware, serial number). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dahua_nvr_get_channels or dahua_nvr_storage_info by focusing on system-level data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when needing Dahua device system info, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. No conflicts with siblings are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The verb 'List' communicates a read-only behavior, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose additional traits like return format, pagination, or authorization needs, but for a simple list operation this may be sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler words. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-described parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it does and in which system, and the schema covers the required input. It does not detail return values, but for a straightforward list operation, the provided information is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter device_id is fully described as 'Dahua DSS device ID'. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail (e.g., how device_id relates to organizations), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the target resource ('organizations/groups'), and the context ('in Dahua DSS'), with a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dss_list_devices and dss_list_channels by naming the organization/group resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the resource type but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The context of sibling tools makes it inferable, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use this to list organizations, not channels'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavior. It discloses that the tool reads and returns VM power states, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or potential errors. The operation is clearly read-only, though not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the output includes power state and that filtering by name/power state is possible via the schema. It could mention additional return fields but is adequate for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter docs for filter and device_id. The tool description does not add any information about parameters 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all VMs on an ESXi host with power state', using a specific verb and resource with expected output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like esxi_get_vm by indicating enumeration of all VMs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the 'List all VMs' phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like esxi_get_vm or when not to use it. No exclusion or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a 'Get' operation, which implies read-only, but does not mention any limitations, required permissions, response format, or whether it returns all queues or filtered results. The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about potential side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read operation with one parameter, so the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent doesn't know the exact return structure, and the description doesn't hint at whether it lists all queues or has any filtering. Still, the simplicity of the tool makes it reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Mikrotik device ID'. Since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, the description's contribution is minimal, aligning with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('simple queue/bandwidth rules') from Mikrotik. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is for retrieving queue/bandwidth rules from a Mikrotik device. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous within the Mikrotik tool family. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but the intent is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and the scope ('all nodes in the cluster'), but it does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., authentication), output format, or any edge cases. However, the operation is simple and the description does not mislead.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that contains no redundant information and fully captures the tool's purpose. It is properly structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, one parameter), the description is mostly complete for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it does not specify what information is returned for each node or explicitly differentiate from proxmox_node_status, leaving slight room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides the only parameter device_id with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some context that the device_id likely refers to a Proxmox server from which the cluster is queried, but it does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all nodes in the Proxmox cluster' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (nodes), and clarifies the scope (the cluster). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_node_status, which likely targets a specific node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need to list all nodes in a Proxmox cluster), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when this tool should not be used. The usage is obvious from the wording but lacks direct comparison to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only 'show' operation, but lacks details about output format, potential prerequisites, or any limitations. It is not misleading but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with no extraneous words. This is efficient and immediately scannable, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-purpose read command with a clear name and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values or complex behavior, though mentioning the optional VLAN filter could enhance completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (device_id and vlan) documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond stating 'Show', so it relies on the schema for semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MAC address table') with a clear scope ('on a switch'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_show_arp or switch_show_neighbors. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (network switch MAC address inspection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The name itself aligns with sibling switch show commands, offering clear implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is 'Show', which implies read-only, but it doesn't mention any caveats such as supported device models, permissions required, availability of CDP/LLDP on the specific switch, or what the output format is. This leaves the agent without needed context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and scope. It could mention what the returned neighbor data includes (e.g., device IDs, interfaces), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of complex requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full coverage for the single 'device_id' parameter with a description ('Switch device ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('CDP (Cisco) or LLDP (HP) neighbor discovery') and the target device ('switch'). It is distinct from sibling tools like switch_show_interfaces or switch_show_mac_table, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this tool to display neighbor discovery information on a switch. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the vendor/protocol detail (CDP for Cisco, LLDP for HP) provides practical guidance. This meets the 'clear context' level, though not 'explicit alternatives'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List', but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether only running containers are shown (only 'running' is mentioned), pagination, authentication requirements, or return format. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it perfectly scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose well. It could optionally detail what information is returned for each container, but it does not leave the agent entirely in the dark. 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, device_id, with a clear description 'Synology NAS device ID'. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List Docker containers') and the target resource ('running on Synology NAS'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like synology_get_storage and synology_system_info by focusing solely on Docker containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when someone needs a list of Docker containers on a Synology NAS, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others or any exclusion criteria. It is not misleading, but it lacks direct alternative differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only 'Get' operation and hints at the data returned (RAID, capacity, usage), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permissions required, or any other behavioral caveats. This is minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key return fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data is retrieved and from which device type. It could mention return format or permissions, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for device_id ('Synology NAS device ID'). The description adds no further detail about how to obtain or format the device_id, but the schema already covers it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'storage volumes/pools info from Synology NAS'. It also mentions the key contents (RAID, capacity, usage), making it distinct from sibling tools like synology_get_disks or synology_system_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when storage volume/pool information is needed on a Synology NAS, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools (e.g., synology_get_disks for physical disks) to prefer. With many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'list', but it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema. The description adequately states the main action but lacks details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns an array of pool names or objects) and any edge-case behavior. It is sufficient for a basic 'list' tool but is not richly contextual.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'node' and 'device_id' already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters (e.g., the relationship between node and device_id, or expected formats). It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('storage pools'), and the scope ('on a Proxmox node'), which makes its purpose immediately obvious and distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_get_network or proxmox_list_vms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: use this tool when you need to list storage pools for a specific Proxmox node. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the naming convention among the sibling tools makes the use case straightforward. No exclusions are stated, which is acceptable for a simple listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is non-destructive ('Get') and details the kind of data returned, but it does not disclose operational nuances such as whether it requires special privileges, makes network calls, or returns one disk vs. multiple disks. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It includes the key specifics (SMART, health, temperature) without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It partially does by listing SMART, health, and temperature, but it doesn't specify the response structure (e.g., array of disks, fields like model/capacity). Given the tool's simplicity and the high-level description, it is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'device_id' described as 'QNAP NAS device ID'. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter format or how to obtain it, but the schema already provides the essential information, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get physical disk info from QNAP NAS' and specifies the key data types ('SMART, health, temperature'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qnap_system_info and qnap_get_volumes, which cover system and volume data respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving physical disk-level information from a QNAP NAS, with SMART, health, and temperature as examples. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is enough to indicate when to use it over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Check status,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose output format, required permissions, side effects, or what 'status' includes. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the supported VPN types without redundancy, and earns its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description effectively communicates the tool's scope, but without an output schema it does not explain what status information is returned, any prerequisites, or potential errors. It is adequate for a simple parameterless tool but leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately says nothing about parameters, as there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check status') and resource ('all VPN connections'), and enumerates five specific VPN technologies. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool `fortigate_vpn_status`, which targets a specific vendor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by listing all supported VPN types, implying use for broad VPN status checks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool's name (`fortigate_vpn_status`) makes the differentiation apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear, and listing the returned fields (SSID, security, mode) gives insight into expected output. It does not specify error conditions or connectivity requirements, but for a simple getter, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant phrases or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the device type, and the specific fields returned. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisite conditions, but these are not crucial for a straightforward read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id) with the description 'Hi-Flying WiFi device ID.' The tool description does not add additional parameter guidance, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('WiFi configuration'), and the specific device make ('Hi-Flying device'). It also lists the returned fields (SSID, security, mode), which is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like hf_get_network.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for retrieving WiFi configuration from Hi-Flying devices, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as hf_get_network or hf_device_info. No exclusion or conditional advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool performs a connectivity test without fetching full status, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not specify return format, failure behavior, or side effects, which leaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Test connectivity'), and the qualifier 'without retrieving full status' adds necessary differentiation. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It falls slightly short by not hinting at the expected return (e.g., success/failure), but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter (device_id with description 'Device ID to test'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('connectivity to a device'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like iot_device_status by adding 'without retrieving full status'. This makes the tool's scope immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without retrieving full status' gives clear context that this is for lightweight connectivity checks rather than detailed status retrieval. It implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resource scope (all VMs, containers, storage, nodes) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not mention potential performance costs, pagination, return format, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate for a simple overview tool but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose and scope in minimal words. Every element—the verb, resource, and parenthetical examples—earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity of a two-parameter read-only overview tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key resource categories and purpose. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the parenthetical enumeration provides sufficient context for an agent to know what will be retrieved. Sibling tools for detailed views also reduce the need for extensive detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description's parenthetical listing of resource types loosely aligns with the 'type' parameter but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'cluster-wide resource overview' from Proxmox, listing the included categories (VMs, containers, storage, nodes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_list_vms or proxmox_get_nodes by emphasizing the aggregate scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'cluster-wide resource overview' clearly implies use when a high-level view across all resources is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like proxmox_list_vms for filtered per-resource views, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the type of information returned (RAID, capacity, usage) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or any limitations. 'Get' suggests a read operation, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output categories. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema). The description covers the main return categories (RAID, capacity, usage), which is sufficient for a straightforward read-only tool. Lacks explicit note on return format or list nature, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'device_id', whose schema already describes it as 'QNAP NAS device ID'. The description adds no 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'storage volumes/pools info' with parenthetical details (RAID, capacity, usage). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like qnap_get_disks and qnap_get_shared_folders by focusing on volumes/pools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context for querying QNAP storage volumes/pools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like qnap_get_disks or qnap_get_shared_folders. No exclusions or alternative names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Tries graceful shutdown first, falls back to force.' Yet it does not mention potential data loss, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving significant risk information unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral nuance. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward VM power-off operation, the description covers the essential behavior and all required parameters are defined in the schema. It omits details like potential data loss or return format, but these are not critical for this simple tool. The lack of output schema is acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning to the 'force' parameter by explaining it is the fallback behavior, which is not present in the schema's description. This extra context justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Power off a VM on ESXi' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the graceful-then-force behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_power_on, esxi_restart_vm, and esxi_suspend_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool (to power off a VM) and distinguishes it from suspend/restart/power-on by naming the action. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the specific data returned (IP, gateway, TCP port) and the action (get), which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple get, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that packs all essential information: source device type (Hi-Flying), operation (get), and result fields. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It does not describe error cases or format, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (device_id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get network configuration from Hi-Flying device' and enumerates the key fields (IP, gateway, TCP port). This differentiates it from sibling tools like hf_get_wifi and hf_get_serial_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when network configuration details are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the data returned (CPU, memory, uptime, version) and the verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, authentication requirements, or response format, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It immediately states the action, resource, and the specific data components, making it highly efficient and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool retrieves. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error conditions, but the simplicity of the tool means the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter (device_id) with 100% coverage, meaning the schema already adequately describes the parameter. The tool description adds no further detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'system resource usage' from Mikrotik, enumerating CPU, memory, uptime, and version. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case for retrieving system-level resource information, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead. Since the purpose is unambiguous and there are no obvious overlapping tools for system resources, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![iot-mcp-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/monthop-gmail/iot-mcp-claude/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/monthop-gmail/iot-mcp-claude)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![iot-mcp-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/monthop-gmail/iot-mcp-claude/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/monthop-gmail/iot-mcp-claude)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/monthop-gmail/iot-mcp-claude'

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