Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_gist_forksB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the semantic detail that the result is the set of gists forked from a specific gist, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as ordering or pagination beyond what the schema already provides.

  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. It is front-loaded with the action and the object, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

  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 listing tool with rich annotations, a complete output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools, but nothing essential about invocation or return values is missing.

  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 gistId, page, and perPage meaningfully, including the note that gistId is not the title. The description only reinforces the 'given gist' relationship and adds no new parameter-level information.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gists that were forked from the given gist'), clearly identifying the operation and its target. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_gists and fork_gist via the 'forked from' relationship, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_gists, get_gist, or fork_gist. The intended use is only implied by 'given gist', with no exclusions or context on choosing it over sibling tools.

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

• list_gist_commitsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered most recent first and the returned SHAs are usable for accessing older revisions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

  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 sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the follow-up usage note earns its place by connecting this tool to the related get_gist/get_gist_file tools.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple read-only list operation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the order, and how the results connect to a real downstream use case.

  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 gistId, page, and perPage all documented inline. The description adds contextual meaning by framing the output as commit history containing reusable SHAs, but it does not add significant parameter-level detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the commit history of a gist.' It also clarifies the ordering ('most recent first') and distinguishes the tool from the related read tools get_gist and get_gist_file by explaining how the commit SHAs produced here can be used there.

  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 gives clear usage context: call this to get the commit history, then use a commit SHA with get_gist or get_gist_file to read an older revision. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives beyond these read tools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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

• check_gist_likeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: the tool distinguishes 'not liked' from 'not visible to you'. This goes beyond the schema and annotations and helps an agent interpret non-obvious negative responses.

  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 short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the important negative-case distinction follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a single-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential call semantics and the key ambiguity in the result. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the gistId parameter already includes a helpful explanation with a source ('the "id" field returned by list_gists/search_gists') and a caveat ('not its title'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('whether the token owner has liked the given gist'), making the tool's function immediately apparent. It also highlights a meaningful distinction from plain boolean checking, which helps differentiate it from related gist tools.

  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: when you need to know whether the current token owner liked a specific gist. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only check semantics and the 'not visible to you' nuance give adequate context for selection.

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

• delete_gistA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  It explains irreversibility, exactly what is destroyed (git repository with revisions and database row), and that the first call does not delete but returns a short-lived token. These details go beyond the annotations and are critical for safe invocation.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Three sentences, each carrying necessary information: the destructive action, the consequence, and the two-call confirmation flow. No filler and the irreversible warning is front-loaded.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  The definition is complete for a destructive two-stage tool: it tells the agent to get user confirmation, explains what the first call returns, and how to complete the operation. The output schema covers return details, and annotations cover safety flags, so nothing essential is missing.

  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%: gistId is defined with source and 'not its title', and confirm_token is described with 'Omit on the first call'. The description repeats the confirm_token workflow but adds no parameter meaning not already 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 opens with 'Permanently delete a gist', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies scope by stating the entire git repository and database row are destroyed. This clearly distinguishes the tool from delete_gist_files and update_gist.

  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 specifies the expected call sequence: first call returns a confirmation token, ask the user, then call again with confirm_token. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of delete_gist_files, so it stops 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.

• delete_gist_filesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Well beyond what annotations already convey (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that deletion affects only the current revision while older revisions retain the files in git history, that the token is short-lived and bound to exactly those filenames, and that user confirmation is required. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and contradicts nothing in the 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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, reversibility context, and the two-call confirmation flow. The core action is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  The trickiest aspect of this tool is the two-call confirmation flow, and the description explains it end to end: first call returns a token, ask the user, call again with confirm_token. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary. An agent has everything needed to invoke both calls 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including disambiguating gistId from the gist title and explaining that confirm_token comes from a prior call. The description adds only small semantic color (the token's short lifetime and its binding to exact filenames), so the high-coverage 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 opening sentence, 'Delete one or more files from a gist', pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope, making the operation unambiguous. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling delete_gist (which removes the entire gist) and update_gist (which modifies content).

  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 specifies exactly how to use the tool: first call stages the operation and returns a token, then the agent must ask the user and call again with confirm_token. This is concrete procedural guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly says when-not-to-use it or names an alternative (e.g., delete_gist for removing the whole gist).

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

• get_userA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the token-owner lookup includes email, while username/userId lookups return only the public profile. This discloses an auth-scoped privacy distinction that is not visible in the schema or 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two invocation modes. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Complete for a simple optional-parameter getter. The output schema covers return values, the annotations cover safety, and the description explains both invocation forms, the auth-token context, and the email/privacy distinction. No critical information is missing.

  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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are well described. The description adds value by tying username/userId to the 'public profile' behavior and contrasting that with the no-argument case, which returns the token owner including email. This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'instead of the token owner' phrasing.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource ('Get an Opengist user account') and distinguishes two modes: no arguments returns the token owner with email, while username/userId returns a public profile. This makes it unmistakably a user lookup tool and distinct from the gist-oriented 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  No alternative user lookup tool exists among the siblings, but the description provides clear guidance on which invocation mode to use: omit arguments for the token owner, or provide username/userId for another public profile. It could be a 5 if it explicitly stated when not to use it, but the context is already strong.

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

• list_gistsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a subtle and important behavior: if the token lacks gist:read scope, private/unlisted gists are silently omitted and only public gists are returned, rather than an error. It also clarifies that the result is summaries without file contents, adding genuine behavioral context not present in the 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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and scope variants are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a critical distinction (summaries vs. file contents) and an important auth-related caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the strong input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what is needed: purpose, scope variants, return granularity, the get_gist alternative, and a hidden failure mode. Nothing important for correct invocation or interpretation of results is left 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description, including the meaning of scope values, username behavior, and pagination constraints. The tool description reinforces the scope variants and adds the file-contents caveat, but it does not substantially extend parameter-level 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gists on the Opengist instance') and enumerates the distinct scope modes: your own, a specific user's, all public, liked, and forked. It also differentiates from get_gist by noting the result contains summaries without file contents, making sibling distinction clear.

  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 indicates when to use the tool for listing gists in several scopes, and explicitly routes the user to get_gist when file contents are needed. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_gists or list_gist_forks, but the context is clear enough for most selection decisions.

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

• search_gistsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by revealing the pagination strategy, the bounded scan, the possibility of incomplete results, and the guarantee that the result reports how much was scanned and whether it was cut short. The unsupported file-content search is also clearly 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?

  Three sentences carry the full message: purpose, implementation caveat, and limitation plus routing to get_gist. Every sentence earns its place, and the most behaviorally important caveat is front-loaded.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a complex 9-parameter search tool, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral details, while the input schema fully documents parameters and the output schema covers return values. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

  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 already documents all 9 parameters with defaults, enums, and query syntax. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond restating the 'title/description/topics/owner' search fields, so it does not move above 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?

  States the precise action 'Find gists' and enumerates the searchable fields (title, description, topics, owner), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the get_gist follow-up by positioning this as the discovery step, not the content-reading step.

  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 explains why this tool exists — Opengist has no search API — and sets expectations that results are client-side filtered, bounded, and possibly incomplete. It also gives a workflow alternative ('narrow the field here, then read candidates with get_gist') and explicitly rules out file-content search, though it does not directly contrast with list_gists for exhaustive listing.

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

• create_gistA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical non-obvious behavior: topics cannot be set via API, public/unlisted visibility requires a confirm_token two-step flow where the first call is refused, and expiry is immutable after creation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking the 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?

  Four compact sentences, each carrying essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each add one important constraint or workflow detail.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given that an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description still covers all material non-obvious aspects: the two-step confirmation flow, irreversible expiry, and API limitation on topics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly and safely.

  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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining how visibility relates to confirm_token, when the confirmation token is needed, and that expiry must be decided here because it can't be changed later. It doesn't need to restate parameters already well documented 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 opens with a precise verb ('Create'), resource ('gist'), and input shape ('from one or more files'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_gist, list_gists, and delete_gist.

  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 gives explicit usage guidance, such as 'Use "private" unless the user asked for otherwise' and notes that expiry can only be set at creation time. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the creation-only scope and timing guidance make when-to-use clear.

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

• fork_gistA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: forking an already-forked gist returns the existing fork, and Opengist returns a 422 error when forking your own gist. This complements the idempotentHint annotation with concrete result and error 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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds essential context: scope, idempotent duplicate behavior, failure case, and an alternative workflow. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the main operation, edge cases, and alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and 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 already provides 100% coverage for gistId, including its format, source, and the clarification that it is not a title. The description adds the conceptual point that the gist must belong to someone else, but it does not need to carry further parameter detail given the strong 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?

  States a specific action ('fork somebody else's gist into your own account'), the target resource (gist), and an ownership restriction that distinguishes it clearly from related sibling tools. It goes beyond the title by adding scope and behavior.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly explains the duplicate-fork behavior and the failure case for forking one's own gist. It names an alternative workflow for copying your own gist via get_gist then create_gist, satisfying the when-to-use vs alternatives requirement.

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

• get_gistA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses truncation behavior (per-file and total caps, reporting in notes), the exact meaning of a 404 (missing vs private invisible, not deleted), and warns that output may contain sensitive data. These are significant behavioral traits not encoded in 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?

  Four sentences, all information-dense but none redundant: core purpose, default exclusions, truncation behavior with remediation, error semantics, and a security caveat. The description is front-loaded and avoids repeating schema-default trivia.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a read-only retrieval tool with 9 parameters, the description covers the essential non-obvious behaviors: truncation, the 404 ambiguity, and sensitive-data risk. Combined with the strong schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

  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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description with defaults and bounds. The description adds value by clarifying the consequence of the maxFileBytes/maxTotalBytes caps (truncation is flagged and linked to get_gist_file) and by explaining that commit history/forks are omitted unless includeCommits/includeForks are 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?

  States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one gist') and explicitly says it includes file contents. The description differentiates from siblings by noting commit history and forks are omitted unless requested and by naming get_gist_file for truncated content, so an agent can distinguish it from list_gists, get_gist_file, list_gist_commits, and list_gist_forks.

  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 get_gist_file (when file content is truncated, the notes name the call that returns the rest) and that commit history/forks require explicit flags. The sha parameter description also points to list_gist_commits. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives, but the key routing information is present.

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

• get_gist_fileA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output may contain sensitive data and must be treated as untrusted content, with a security instruction not to follow instructions found in the content.

  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 three tightly packed sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and safety warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the rich schema, high parameter coverage, available output schema, and strong annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps well: when to prefer this tool and why the output is dangerous. Nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

  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 descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful framing for sha and offset in the context of revisions and chunked reading, but it calls the offset a 'byte offset' while the schema describes it as a 'character offset', creating a real ambiguity that prevents this from scoring higher.

  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 and resource: 'Get the raw content of a single file of a gist', with optional revision and offset. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling get_gist, which retrieves a whole gist rather than one file.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this for files that get_gist truncated, or to read a large file in chunks.' It also names the alternative tool, get_gist, making the selection decision unambiguous.

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

• set_gist_likeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the idempotency mechanism: it reads the current state first and only toggles when it differs, so repeated identical calls do not undo the action. It also discloses the required user:write scope, addressing authentication needs.

  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?

  Two tightly written sentences front-load the purpose and then provide the two most critical behavioral details: idempotency and authentication. No filler or redundant repetition of schema contents.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple boolean toggle tool, the description covers the operation, idempotent behavior, and required scope. The output schema exists for return values, and the annotations cover mutability and destructiveness, so nothing essential is missing.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description's idempotency explanation enriches the semantics of the "liked" boolean parameter, clarifying how repeated calls with the same value behave. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'true to like, false to remove' 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 opens with "Like or unlike a gist," a specific verb and resource that clearly states the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_gist_like by signaling a mutation rather than a read, and from update_gist by targeting like state specifically.

  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 purpose makes the primary use case obvious: to set or remove a like on a gist. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as check_gist_like for reading the current state, nor does it state when not to use this tool. This is clear context without exclusions.

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

• update_gistA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: unknown keys are silently dropped, unlisted files are untouched, the tool can never delete a file, and visibility widening requires a confirm_token while narrowing does not. This materially changes how an agent should invoke and reason about the 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 dense but every sentence carries actionable information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through the most dangerous misuse, the preservation rule, the deletion boundary, and the confirm_token conditions with no filler.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a complex mutation tool with 7 parameters, nested fileOps, confirm_token logic, and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious usage details comprehensively. The agent has enough context to call the tool safely and correctly without encountering the main pitfalls.

  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 71%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the fileOps semantics, the silent-failure behavior of the files key, and the confirm_token conditions. It does not explain title or description in detail, but their meaning is already evident from their names and constraints.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: changing metadata and/or writing/renaming files in a gist. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_gist and delete_gist_files without needing to open their schemas.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says file changes go in fileOps, not files, and explains the consequence of passing files anyway. It also tells the agent to use delete_gist_files for deletions and when confirm_token is required, giving clear when-to-use and 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.