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. While 'Add custom rule' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like: what permissions are required, whether this overwrites existing rules, how rules are validated, or what happens on success/failure. The '🆕 v6' prefix suggests versioning but doesn't explain its implications.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - just one sentence with 8 words. While efficient, the '🆕 v6' prefix feels like metadata that might be better placed elsewhere. The core message is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more context given the tool's apparent complexity.

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

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

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what validation occurs, how rules interact with existing ones, or the practical effect of adding a rule to NAMING_WIZARD_RULES.yaml. The version hint ('v6') suggests complexity that isn't addressed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 3 parameters (ruleType, keywords, output) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add custom rule') and target resource ('NAMING_WIZARD_RULES.yaml'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'generateFileName', 'naturalLanguageToFileName', or 'validateFileName'), which all seem related to naming/file operations but with different functions.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to naming and file operations (e.g., 'generateFileName', 'validateFileName', 'explainFileName'), there's no indication of when this specific rule-adding functionality is appropriate versus other naming-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or involves rate limits. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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.

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

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or how parameters relate to generating file names. For a batch generation tool with input complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters (projectType, microservices, count). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or what 'file names' entail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

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

The description 'Generates multiple file names at once' states the basic action but lacks specificity about what kind of file names or for what purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'generateFileName' by indicating batch capability, but doesn't clarify the resource or context beyond 'file names', making it somewhat vague.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generateFileName' (single file name generation) or 'naturalLanguageToFileName'. The description implies batch processing but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'v6' which suggests versioning, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what format the output takes, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.

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

The description is appropriately concise with just one sentence. The emoji and version prefix ('🆕 v6:') add some visual distinction without being excessive. However, the version information might not be essential for tool selection by an AI agent.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of cycles, boolean result, visualization), error handling, or operational context. For a dependency analysis tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context about behavior and outputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'depGraphPath'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain why this path matters, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or how the tool uses this graph. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check for circular dependencies in project' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('circular dependencies in project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'validateDeps' by focusing specifically on circularity detection rather than general dependency validation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generateDepGraph' which might be related.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validateDeps' or 'generateDepGraph'. It mentions 'v6' which might imply version context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it. The agent receives no usage differentiation from sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'check permission' but doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, access level, error if denied), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The version note adds minor context about folder inclusion but doesn't address key behavioral traits like response format or error handling.

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

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

The description is brief (one sentence) but includes an unnecessary parenthetical note ('v6 includes 07_META') that doesn't add core value. It's front-loaded with the main action, but the extra detail is distracting rather than helpful. It could be more concise by removing the version reference.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a permission-checking tool. It doesn't explain what the output will be (e.g., success/failure, access details), behavioral aspects like error cases, or how it integrates with the system. The version note doesn't compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enums and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'folder' is required (via the version note referencing '07_META'), but this is redundant with the schema's required field. No additional meaning is provided for parameters like 'operation' or 'aiName'.

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

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

The description states the action ('check AI permission') and resource ('specific folder'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'check permission' entails (e.g., returns boolean, detailed access info) and includes an unnecessary version note ('v6 includes 07_META') that doesn't clarify the purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getAIRole' or 'createAIRoleMatrix' which might relate to permissions.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing folder names from another source), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'getAIRole' that might handle permissions differently. The version note hints at scope but doesn't offer actionable usage advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'creates' a file, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, file overwriting behavior, output location, or error handling. The 'v6' hint suggests versioning but isn't elaborated.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. The '🆕 v6' prefix adds context without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the created YAML file contains, how it's structured, where it's saved, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that creates a configuration file, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'projectName' and 'aiTools' or the format of the generated YAML file.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('AI_ROLE_MATRIX.yaml'), specifying it's for 'multi-AI collaboration'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createProjectStructure' or 'getAIRole', but the purpose is specific enough to understand what it produces.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'v6' and 'multi-AI collaboration', but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'createProjectStructure' or 'getAIRole'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a structure, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it overwrites existing folders, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create v6 standard 8-folder project structure') and adds a useful detail ('includes 07_META') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. While it's complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level, it doesn't provide sufficient context for safe and effective invocation without additional assumptions.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (projectName and version). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'v6' or the '07_META' folder in relation to parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('v6 standard 8-folder project structure'), including the specific detail that it includes '07_META'. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'createAIRoleMatrix' or 'getProjectTemplate' by focusing on folder structure creation rather than role matrices or template retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'suggestFolder' or 'migrateFromV4', which slightly limits differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'migrateFromV4' (for version migration) or 'suggestFolder' (for folder suggestions). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose this tool appropriately in scenarios where other tools could be more suitable.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('explains each component') but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns structured explanations, handles errors, or has performance constraints. This leaves gaps in understanding operational traits.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, which could help an agent invoke it more effectively. It meets the minimum viable threshold.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'fileName' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'component' or provide examples. Baseline 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.

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 ('explains') and resource ('each component of a file name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validateFileName' or 'generateFileName', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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

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 'validateFileName' or 'naturalLanguageToFileName'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'export' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this writes files locally, requires permissions, has side effects, or what format the output takes. The '🆕 v6' hint implies versioning but doesn't explain its impact. This leaves critical operational details unclear.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but the '🆕 v6' prefix is unnecessary and distracts from the core message. It's front-loaded with the purpose but could be more structured by explicitly stating what 'configuration' includes. Overall, it's brief but not optimally clear.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that likely writes files (implied by 'export' and 'outputPath'). It doesn't explain what configuration is exported, the output format, or any dependencies. For a 2-parameter tool with potential side effects, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails for each tool or clarify the output path usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states the tool exports configuration for AI tools, which is a clear purpose. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' means and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createProjectStructure' or 'getProjectTemplate' that might also involve configuration. The '🆕 v6' prefix adds noise but doesn't clarify the core function.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'migrateFromV4' and 'createProjectStructure' that might relate to configuration, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 the tool generates a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a file-generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key information (generation action and output) efficiently, and the emoji/version prefix, while stylistic, doesn't detract from clarity. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the complexity (file generation from source scanning), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output file contains, how @deps tags are processed, or potential errors. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (sourcePath and outputPath). The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('DEP_GRAPH.yaml'), and mentions the input source ('from @deps tags'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'checkCircularDeps' or 'validateDeps', which also deal with dependencies. The version indicator '🆕 v6:' adds context but doesn't clarify functional uniqueness.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when @deps tags are available), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'scanProject' or 'validateDeps'. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates file names but doesn't explain how the naming convention works, what format the output takes (e.g., string, structured data), or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by briefly hinting at parameter roles (e.g., 'combines microservice, layer, etc.') to add value, but it avoids waste.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, how parameters combine, or behavioral traits like idempotency or error handling. For a generation tool with rich input schema but no other structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions and enums for most parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters combine into an 'AI naming convention', but it doesn't explain how they interact or the resulting file name structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose ('Generates file names according to AI naming convention'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Generates') and resource ('file names'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'naturalLanguageToFileName' or 'explainFileName'. The mention of 'AI naming convention' adds some specificity but remains broad.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'naturalLanguageToFileName' (which might convert natural language to file names) and 'explainFileName' (which might explain naming conventions), there's no indication of when this generation tool is preferred. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (e.g., JSON table, list). This leaves key behavioral traits unclear for a tool with potential data retrieval complexities.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving a table with categorical filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'action code table' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'category' parameter well-documented (type, enum, default). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond this, such as explaining what 'action code table' means in context of categories. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

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

The description 'Retrieves the action code table' clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('action code table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what an 'action code table' entails (e.g., is it a list of codes, metadata, or something else?), and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'getLayerCodes' or 'getAIRole', which might retrieve similar structured data.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for project setup or validation), or compare to sibling tools like 'getLayerCodes' or 'getProjectTemplate'. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 states it 'gets' data (implying read-only) and specifies the source file, but doesn't describe what happens if the file doesn't exist, if permissions are needed to access it, what format the returned data has, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. The version indicator '🆕 v6' is brief and potentially useful context. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (role details, permission structure), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the tool has low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the lack of output information is a significant gap given the absence of structured output documentation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'aiName' with its description and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AI role and permissions', specifying the source 'from AI_ROLE_MATRIX.yaml'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createAIRoleMatrix' (which creates rather than gets) and 'getActionCodes' (which gets different data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible read operations among siblings.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to other tools that might retrieve role/permission information. The version note '🆕 v6' implies it's new but doesn't clarify usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieves' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'layer code table' entails (e.g., format, size). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layer code table' means, its return format, or behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool, this leaves the agent without enough context to use it effectively.

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

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

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage and one parameter well-documented with enum values, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate or add extra context about the 'category' parameter's impact.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('layer code table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'getActionCodes' or 'getAIRole' that also retrieve different types of data, missing explicit distinction.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getActionCodes' and 'getAIRole' that might retrieve similar structured data, the description lacks context about when this specific retrieval is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' templates, implying a read-only or creation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, affects system state, involves rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON, list of files). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generates file structure templates by project type'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, side effects), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and any context about the generated templates (e.g., structure, format). While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

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

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters ('projectType' and 'scale') are well-documented in the schema with enums and defaults. The description implies parameters through 'by project type' but doesn't elaborate on semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generates file structure templates by project type'. It specifies the verb ('generates') and resource ('file structure templates'), and distinguishes its focus on templates from siblings like 'createProjectStructure' (which likely creates actual structures) or 'suggestFolder' (which suggests individual folders). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'batchGenerateFileNames' or 'generateFileName', which might share some conceptual overlap with file generation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection among siblings (e.g., 'createProjectStructure' for actual creation vs. this for templates), or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool logs to a file, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like file creation/append behavior, permissions needed, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies system state.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and target efficiently, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the logging format, how entries are structured in HUMAN_OVERRIDES.md, or what happens on success/failure, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Log human intervention') and the target ('to HUMAN_OVERRIDES.md'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., suggestCorrection, explainFileName) that might also involve human-AI interactions, missing full sibling distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'human intervention' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection among the 21 sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions migration with a specific folder, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to the original project. This is inadequate for a migration tool.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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

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

For a migration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what migration entails (e.g., file transformations, compatibility checks), success/failure outcomes, or any behavioral warnings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Migrate') and resource ('project from v4/v5 to v6'), including the specific detail about '07_META folder'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the migration focus is distinct from other tools like 'createProjectStructure' or 'scanProject'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for migrating projects from older versions, but there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other tools like 'createProjectStructure' or 'getProjectTemplate'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'using Naming Wizard' and includes a version indicator ('🆕 v6'), it doesn't describe what the Naming Wizard is, what transformation rules it applies, whether there are rate limits, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output format looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool that performs language transformation.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - just one sentence with a version indicator. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. The emoji and version marker add some visual structure but don't contribute meaningful information about the tool's functionality.

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

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

For a language conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid natural language input, what the output format will be (string? structured object?), what transformation rules are applied, or how the Naming Wizard operates. The presence of sibling tools with similar names suggests this is part of a larger system that needs more contextual explanation.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the natural language input should be structured, what types of descriptions work best, or how the language parameter affects the conversion process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting natural language to file names using a specific component (Naming Wizard). It includes a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('natural language to file name'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generateFileName' or 'explainFileName' which might have overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'generateFileName' and 'explainFileName' that appear related to file name operations, there's no indication of when this specific natural language conversion approach is preferred or what distinguishes it from other file name generation methods.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'scan' and 'generate reports' imply read-only analysis, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a heavy operation, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies anything, or what format/scope the reports have. The version note '🆕 v6' suggests changes but doesn't explain them.

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

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

The description is very concise with just one sentence plus a version indicator. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the version note '🆕 v6' adds minimal value without explaining what changed from previous versions.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema that performs project scanning and report generation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the reports contain, their format, whether this is a heavy operation, what happens with the results, or how it differs from related sibling tools. The context signals show this is a non-trivial tool that needs more explanation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'full' vs 'structure' reports contain, what 'compliance' means, or provide examples of project paths. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states the tool 'Scan project structure and generate reports' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what 'scan' entails and what 'reports' contain. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkFolderPermission', 'validateDeps', or 'generateDepGraph' that might involve similar analysis operations.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that could involve project analysis (checkFolderPermission, validateDeps, generateDepGraph, etc.), there's no indication of when scanProject is the appropriate choice versus these other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides suggestions but doesn't describe what form these suggestions take (e.g., list of alternatives, explanations), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Provides correction suggestions for invalid file names.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's function.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what the correction suggestions look like), potential errors, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves validation logic, more context is needed to understand how to interpret results, making this inadequate despite the simple parameter schema.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'fileName' documented as 'File name to validate.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'invalid' file name or how suggestions are generated. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides correction suggestions for invalid file names.' It specifies the verb ('provides correction suggestions') and resource ('invalid file names'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validateFileName' or 'explainFileName', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when a file name is considered invalid), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'validateFileName' (which might check validity without suggestions) or 'explainFileName' (which could provide explanations rather than corrections). This leaves the agent 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.

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 mentions 'v6 includes 07_META', which suggests some behavioral trait (e.g., version-specific logic or metadata handling), but doesn't explain what this entails—such as how suggestions are generated, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The single sentence is efficient, though the parenthetical note 'v6 includes 07_META' could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse, but it lacks structural elements like examples or bullet points that might aid clarity.

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

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

Given the complexity of a suggestion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., folder name, path, confidence score), how suggestions are determined, or any error conditions. The mention of 'v6 includes 07_META' adds some context but is insufficient for full understanding, leaving key aspects undocumented.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (fileName, fileType, content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on how these parameters influence the suggestion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose as suggesting an appropriate folder for a file, which is clear but vague. It mentions 'v6 includes 07_META' which adds some specificity but doesn't fully explain what this means or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'checkFolderPermission' or 'createProjectStructure'. The purpose is understandable but lacks detailed differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'checkFolderPermission', 'createProjectStructure', and 'scanProject', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The mention of 'v6 includes 07_META' hints at a version-specific feature but doesn't clarify usage scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions validation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated), what happens on failure (errors, warnings?), if it modifies files, or what permissions are needed. The '🆕 v6' hint suggests version-specific behavior but doesn't explain it.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Validate @deps tags in files'), though the '🆕 v6' prefix could be considered slightly extraneous. It's efficient with no wasted words, but lacks structural elements like examples or prerequisites that might enhance clarity.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation entails, what the output looks like (success/failure messages, reports?), or how it differs from sibling dependency tools. For a tool with potential complexity in dependency validation, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'filePath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify if 'filePath' must be absolute/relative, support glob patterns, or point to specific file types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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

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

The description states the tool validates '@deps tags in files' which is a specific action, but it's vague about what validation entails (checking syntax, existence, correctness?). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'checkCircularDeps' or 'generateDepGraph' that also deal with dependencies. The '🆕 v6' prefix adds version context but doesn't clarify the core purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'checkCircularDeps', 'scanProject', and 'validateFileName' available, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for pre-commit validation, dependency auditing, or another specific context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about return format (e.g., boolean pass/fail, detailed validation errors), performance characteristics, error handling, or what 'complies' means operationally. The description is functional but lacks behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple validation tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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

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

For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally explain what 'validates' returns (e.g., success/failure, error details) and what 'AI naming convention' entails. The current description leaves these aspects ambiguous.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'fileName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying validation against 'AI naming convention', which the schema doesn't specify. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('file name'), and specifies the compliance standard ('AI naming convention'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'explainFileName' or 'generateFileName' that might also involve file name operations.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explainFileName' (which might explain naming conventions) or 'generateFileName' (which might create compliant names). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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