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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part: it declares the read-only guarantee ('this server can never write') and the GET-only constraint, which is exactly the safety profile an agent needs. It omits secondary traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, and how pagination or errors surface, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the read-only guarantee and the GET-only restriction front-loaded before the examples. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say something about the response shape (raw API payload) or pagination conventions, and it does not. For a passthrough tool the essential calling information is present, but the return-side behavior is left unspecified.

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 both 'path' and 'query' are already documented in the schema. The description's path examples ('/labels', '/warehouses') largely duplicate what the schema already shows, and it adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the baseline.

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

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

States a specific verb ('issue an arbitrary GET') and resource ('any Segment Public API path'), with concrete path examples. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_*/get_* tools, which each target a named resource, by positioning itself as the generic escape hatch.

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 'escape hatch' framing plus 'only GET is supported' tells the agent this is the fallback for endpoints not covered by the dedicated sibling tools, and that write operations are out of scope. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings or stating a 'prefer X when available' rule, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully spelled out.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the response includes full settings/config (with an example), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, the resource, and the key return detail.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (full settings/config) and how to identify the destination. Minor gaps like error behavior are acceptable given the low complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'destinationId' is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond 'by id', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single Segment destination by id') and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_destinations by specifying 'single'. The mention of full settings/config further clarifies the scope of the destination object returned.

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

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

Usage is implied by 'Get a single ... by id', which suggests calling it when you need one destination's full configuration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_destinations, get_source, or other siblings, nor any stated exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Get" implies a read, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior when the id does not exist (error vs. empty), or whether the result is cached; for a zero-annotation tool these omissions matter.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval key is stated before any elaboration. It is terse to the point of being sparse, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter getter with a fully covered schema, the description is minimally adequate, though with no output schema it gives no hint of what a "function" object contains or how failures surface.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single functionId parameter is documented in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (function) with the retrieval key (by id), which is enough to distinguish it from list_functions and the other list_* siblings. It stops just short of naming an alternative, but the singular-vs-plural contrast with list_functions is clear enough for selection.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of list_functions for discovery or api_get for arbitrary endpoints. The agent must infer that this is the direct-lookup path when an id is already known.

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 behavioral burden, yet it only adds 'including its settings' about the payload. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a bad/unknown id, rate limits, or the shape of the returned object, which for a no-annotation tool is a notable 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?

One tight sentence with no filler and the resource scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it sacrifices some potentially useful detail rather than achieving ideal information density.

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

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

For a simple single-record read with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what comes back; 'including its settings' gestures at this but does not describe the response envelope or id-resolution behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of any 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (including the 'abc123' example), the schema already documents sourceId fully. The description adds no further semantics such as id format, source, or lookup fallback, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Segment source), and the qualifier 'single ... by id' separates it from the sibling list_sources. However, it never names the sibling alternative (get_destination, get_function) to sharpen the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. you need an id obtained from list_sources), and no exclusion of alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the required sourceId.

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 bears the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about failure behavior (e.g., not-found), authentication needs, or what is returned. It essentially restates the tool name.

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

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

One short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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

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

For a low-complexity single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nevertheless omits any note on error handling or return content, which an agent would benefit from given there are no annotations or output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as 'The tracking plan id.' The description adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb (get) and resource (tracking plan) and scopes it to a single item by id, which separates it from list_tracking_plans. It does not explicitly name the sibling list tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

The phrase 'by id' implies an id must be known, but there is no statement of when to use this over list_tracking_plans or what to do if the id is unknown. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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 says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, ordering, result limits, or what happens when no filters are supplied, focusing only on the filtering behavior already described in the schema.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose before describing optional filters. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameter behavior but omits return shape, pagination, and read-only safety context that would help an agent invoke it with confidence.

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 optional parameters in detail. The description adds only the example 'intercom' and the 'and/or' conjunction, which is marginal added value beyond the structured field definitions.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (Segment destinations), clearly indicating a collection-retrieval tool. It does not differentiate this list tool from siblings like get_destination or list_sources, so it falls short of the top 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 explains optional filtering but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_destination for a single destination. There are no exclusions or routing cues, leaving the agent to infer that listing is appropriate from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Being a 'list' operation implies read-only behavior and it states the scope ('in the workspace'), but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or what the returned collection contains.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the optional-filter behavior. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is absence of any note about result size, pagination, or ordering, which the annotations would normally have supplied.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: the parameter is optional and omitting it returns every type, which the schema's 'Only return functions of this type.' does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List functions in the workspace'), clearly distinguishing it from the singular sibling get_function. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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

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

The description covers parameter usage ('Optionally filter by resourceType; omit it to list every type') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_function or other list_* tools. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned records (id, name, slug, enabled, write key settings), which is useful output context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or whether disabled sources are included.

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

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

A single tightly written sentence with the scope ('all ... in the workspace') front-loaded and the returned fields in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the structure is unremarkable and does not flag the sibling relationship.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the fields that come back, and with zero parameters there is little else an agent needs to invoke it. It is nearly complete; only pagination/limits remain unattested, which is a minor gap for a simple workspace listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (Segment sources in the workspace) and even enumerates the fields returned (id, name, slug, enabled, write key settings). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_source sibling, though it never explicitly states that 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 phrase 'List all' implies bulk enumeration and thus hints that a single-record lookup belongs to get_source, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage must be inferred from the sibling 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 disclosure burden. It does add useful scope information ('all', 'in the workspace', implying no filtering), but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or permission requirements for a tool whose reads could be workspace-wide.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no redundancy with the title, and immediate statement of resource and scope.

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 zero-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have said something about the shape of the result set or how large result sets are returned. Adequate, with a visible gap.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and it does not confuse the matter.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('List all tracking plans') and scopes the result to the workspace, so an agent can distinguish it from get_tracking_plan. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from the singular sibling, which is what a 5 would require.

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

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_sources, list_functions, list_destinations, or get_tracking_plan. Enumeration is loosely implied by 'List all', but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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