Windows Developer MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as run_cmd, run_powershell, run_script, run_python_script, node_run_script, and npx_run all for executing code/scripts. HTTP/network tools like fetch_page, extract_text, http_get, check_url, and open_url also blur boundaries. An agent will likely struggle to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency3/5Many tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain prefixes (e.g., git_commit, docker_run, sqlite_query), but there are notable inconsistencies like run_script vs run_python_script vs node_run_script, get_process vs list_processes vs list_services, and npx_run vs npm_run. The mix of get_*, list_*, and run_* without a unified style reduces predictability.
Tool Count1/5With 112 tools, the server is extremely overloaded. Even for a broad Windows developer MCP server, this number far exceeds practical usability and would overwhelm agents with choices.
Completeness3/5The tool set covers many domains (file, shell, git, docker, python, npm, system, network, sqlite, project analysis), but there are notable gaps: GitHub lacks issue update/close and PR create/merge, and git lacks merge/rebase/reset. These missing operations create dead ends in common workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 100 of 112 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects like image pulling, container lifecycle, or resource impact. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates containers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, non-verbose sentence, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core action, yet lacks the richness expected for a tool with eight parameters and many sibling tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the rich schema and output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain when to use the tool, how parameters interplay, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for a complex Docker command with many options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 eight parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run a Docker container' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like docker_exec or docker_build, lacking differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_exec or docker_compose_up. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and omits critical side effects like modifying package.json, creating node_modules, or requiring network access, which is essential for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and waste-free. However, it may be too terse for a tool with side effects, but conciseness itself is well executed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and parameter descriptions are thorough, the tool description lacks essential context about installation behavior, side effects, and prerequisites. This is a mutation tool with no annotation support, making the description incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters (confirm, packages, save_dev) with clear descriptions, so the description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers parameter meaning comprehensively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Install npm packages' uses a specific verb (install) and resource (npm packages), effectively conveying the primary function. It is distinguishable from siblings like npm_run and npm_list, though it doesn't add details beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 npm_run, npm_list, or install_package. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Return logs' and adds no detail about default tail behavior, streaming, output format, or prerequisites. It provides essentially no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded. It is not rambling, though it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the schema/output schema provide good coverage, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the follow-vs-tail best practice and sibling differentiation, leaving minor gaps for an agent selecting this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, leaving the schema to carry the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'logs from a container', making the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like docker_compose_logs by specifying 'container', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 docker_compose_logs, nor does it mention the recommended tail approach over follow. The schema's follow parameter contains a recommendation, but the description itself offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive, doesn't mention return format or pagination, and doesn't disclose any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two words: 'List Docker images.' It is extremely succinct, front-loaded, and contains zero wasted words, making it highly concise even though it under-specifies in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context such as what 'images' means (e.g., local, cached), prerequisites like Docker daemon, and doesn't mention the all_images behavior in prose. With many sibling tools, a bit more context would help differentiate it, but the schema and output schema mitigate some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter (all_images), with a description explaining intermediate layers. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List Docker images,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from container-related tools like docker_list_containers, though it doesn't go into detail about scope or variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context. It is a bare statement with no comparative or situational language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only static content is fetched and that it works over HTTP/HTTPS, but it does not explain behavior for redirects, response size limits, error handling, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks clarity on how this differs from overlapping siblings and does not mention edge cases like redirects or non-HTML content, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both url and timeout already described. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (static web page content over HTTP/HTTPS). It avoids tautology and basic naming, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like http_get or check_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 http_get, open_url, or check_url. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It does not mention ordering, read-only nature, or whether it affects the repository, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasting words. It is appropriately brief for a simple read tool, though the brevity sacrifices other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description offers minimal context. There are no usage guidelines, no behavioral details, and no mention of limitations, making the tool under-specified for an agent despite the schema covering parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (limit, since, author, oneline) is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Return recent commit history' with a clear verb and resource, making the tool's purpose evident. It is distinguishable from sibling git tools like git_diff and git_status, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other git commands. The description lacks any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when to select git_log.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Execute a JavaScript file with Node.js.' It does not disclose potential side effects, output handling, error behavior, or the fact that arbitrary code execution can be destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise, though it may be too terse to provide essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary JS) and lack of annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not address safety, output capture, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but full schema coverage compensates for that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (execute) and resource (JavaScript file) with the runtime (Node.js), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_script or npm_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for any .js file, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as run_script, npx_run, or run_python_script.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention side effects (e.g., creating containers, pulling images), prerequisites (Docker daemon), or confirmation behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be enriched with behavioral context without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, including detach and confirm) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand when to use it or what happens when invoked. It only states the purpose, leaving behavioral and usage aspects uncovered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (file, detach, confirm, services). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start Docker Compose services' uses a specific verb (start) and resource (Docker Compose services), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docker_compose_down (stop) and docker_compose_logs (logs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_run or docker_build. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'List Docker containers' and does not state that it is a read-only operation, that it lists running containers by default, or that it requires Docker daemon access. This is minimal and lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description plus parameter schema provide a basic understanding. However, it omits the default behavior (only running containers) and any usage context, leaving gaps that must be inferred from the parameter description and tool name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'all_containers' with description 'If True, include stopped containers.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add extra parameter meaning. The baseline of 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Docker containers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating what it does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_list_images (images) and other docker commands, though it doesn't elaborate on scope or variations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like docker_logs or docker_run. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or when to avoid using it, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavior like default state filter, pagination/limit behavior, or auth/rate-limit implications. It adds no transparency beyond the literal purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear front-loaded verb and subject. No fluff or redundancy; efficiently states the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params) and the presence of detailed schema and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that issues can be filtered by state/label or that defaults apply, but those are present in the schema. The description adds little value beyond the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with specifics (e.g., limit range, state defaults). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'issues' for a GitHub repository, clearly indicating a read/multiple-issue operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like github_get_issue or github_list_prs, lacking direct differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling GitHub tools such as github_get_issue for single issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing that it is a read-only operation, its default behavior (e.g., returning open PRs by default), or any pagination limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that lists potentially many records.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable for a straightforward list operation, but it lacks guidance on when to use it instead of related tools and provides no behavioral context (like defaults or read-only nature). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description's brevity leaves gaps in usage direction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are well-documented in the input schema (100% coverage) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to duplicate schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('pull requests for a repository'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues or github_get_pr. However, it lacks any additional scoping or distinguishing details, such as filtering options or whether it returns multiple items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_pr or github_list_issues. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list the contents,' omitting important behaviors such as non-recursive operation, hidden file handling (though implied by the parameter), error behavior for invalid paths, and whether it returns a simple list or detailed entries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the parameter schema clarifies inputs. However, the description fails to mention that this is a single-level listing (not recursive), which is a notable gap given the sibling 'tree' tool. The minimal description is adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('path' and 'show_hidden') are self-explanatory. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists directory contents with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'tree' tool, which could also list a directory, but the name and verb are unambiguous enough for most cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tree' for recursive listings or 'read_file' for file contents. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only restates the basic function without disclosing behavior like depth handling, global flag effect, or outputs beyond the schema. The description adds no behavioral context that isn't already 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler, perfectly front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats. The output schema exists, but the absence of any context about when to use this tool or how it behaves makes it less complete than ideal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full coverage with clear descriptions for depth and global_packages. The description itself does not add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List installed npm packages' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like npm_install or npm_info by focusing on listing, but does not explicitly state local vs global scope in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 list_packages or npm_info. There is no mention of exclusions or context, leaving the agent without help in choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and result, but omits details such as network requirements, potential timeouts, or failure behavior. It provides only minimal transparency into what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, simple schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral notes, which are relevant for an agent deciding between network diagnostic tools. The description could be more complete with a sentence on when to use it or its limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (host and count) with descriptions and default. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ping a host and return round-trip statistics' clearly states the action (ping) and resource (host), and hints at the output (round-trip statistics). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like traceroute, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context like checking host reachability or compare with traceroute/dns_lookup. This leaves the agent without explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the basic action and does not mention network dependency, potential latency, failure modes, security implications, or what results are returned beyond the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the necessary action with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description adequately defines the core operation. However, it lacks usage alternatives and behavioral caveats, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding between network diagnostic tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'hostname' with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond using the word 'hostname', so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Perform' and identifies the resource 'DNS lookup' with the target 'hostname', making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling network tools like ping or traceroute, but the operation is uniquely named and described.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ping, traceroute, or http_get. The description simply states the action without any context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'stop and remove' but does not disclose that confirmation is required (confirm param), that named volumes are only removed if volumes=true, or that networks are also removed by default. The lack of detail on destructive side effects makes it risky for an agent to invoke without further clarification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, clearly conveying the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it omits important context, so it doesn't achieve the ideal balance of brevity and informativeness (a 5).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the schema fully describes all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient for simple invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance, does not mention the confirmation requirement, and does not clarify what exactly is removed (e.g., containers, networks, volumes). These gaps reduce completeness for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all three parameters (file, confirm, volumes) with clear meanings, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or augment it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop and remove') and the resource ('Docker Compose services'), distinguishing it from siblings like docker_stop (stop a container) or docker_remove_container (remove a container). The scope is specific to Compose-managed services, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_stop, docker_remove_container, or docker_compose_up. The description does not mention prerequisites, common workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like downloading layers, consuming disk space, requiring network access, or the confirm parameter's role in prompting. This lack of detail could lead to unexpected resource usage or failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easily parseable. However, it might be slightly over-minimal given the existence of a confirmation parameter, but it remains appropriately sized for a simple pull operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits context about when confirmation is required, how pulling interacts with the local image store, and potential side effects like disk usage. This is adequate for a simple tool but misses nuances that could affect an agent's decision.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters (image and confirm) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, and the confirm parameter is not explained in the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, this is acceptable but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Pull') and a resource ('Docker image from a registry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docker_run (which starts containers), docker_build (builds images locally), and docker_list_images (lists local images). The action is unambiguous and well-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention that pulling is the prerequisite for running images, nor does it contrast with docker_build or docker_run. This leaves the agent without context for selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose the destructive nature and side effects. It only states 'Remove a Docker container' without explicitly stating that this is permanent, that confirmation is required, or that running containers need force. The word 'Remove' implies deletion, but the description fails to convey the full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively states the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only 3 parameters and an output schema, the tool is destructive and lacks any description of confirmation or force requirements. The sparse description leaves critical safety context absent, making it incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a Docker container.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like docker_stop and docker_logs. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as stopping the container first or when to use the force parameter. The parameter descriptions in the schema hint at these, but the tool description itself lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects such as modifying the working directory, creating merge commits, causing conflicts, or requiring network/auth. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is immediately front-loaded with the core action, making it highly concise and structurally effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should at least mention that this modifies the local repository and may have side effects (e.g., merging, conflicts). The description lacks necessary context for an agent to use it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptive documentation for both parameters (branch and remote), with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it takes the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pull changes from a remote repository' clearly states the action (pull) and the target resource (remote repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_push (opposite direction) and git_clone (initial setup), so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that it is for updating an existing local branch, nor does it mention any prerequisites or cases where a different tool (e.g., git_fetch or git_clone) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that 'drop' and 'clear' actions are destructive, or that the default action is 'push'. The description gives no insight into side effects or state changes beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it could arguably be more structured to list the actions, but this is not necessary given the schema covers them.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but adequate for a tool with a schema that fully explains parameters. However, it lacks important context such as the destructive nature of certain actions and when to use the tool, leaving gaps for an agent to make informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the action enum values and the message's purpose. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('Stash' and 'restore') and a clear resource ('uncommitted changes'). This distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_checkout or git_commit, which operate on different aspects of the workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios like temporarily shelving changes before switching branches or when pop vs drop is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It omits critical details such as potential side effects (npx may install packages), network access, or the fact that arbitrary commands are executed. 'Execute a command' states the operation but provides no safety or side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is optimally concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. The brevity contributes to easy readability, though other dimensions capture the lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a complete parameter schema and output schema, the description lacks essential context for a command-execution tool. It does not mention security implications, when to prefer npx, or behavior around package installation. The combination of a minimal description and no annotations leaves the agent under-informed about this potentially dangerous operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (command, args, timeout), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already covers semantics, justifying the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a command with npx' clearly identifies the tool's action (execute) and resource (npx), and the 'with npx' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cmd, npm_run, and node_run_script. The purpose is unambiguous and directly associated with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the core function without mentioning scenarios, exclusions, or related tools such as npm_run or run_cmd, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that copying may overwrite an existing destination (with confirm=true) or that a destination might need confirmation, which is a key safety and behavior detail. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and complete parameter definitions, so return values and parameter syntax are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, confirmation requirements, and when the copy might fail, which are important for reliable agent usage. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the purpose of the confirm flag or typical usage. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'copy' and the resource 'file' with a destination scope ('within the workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_file (copy vs move) and write_file (copies existing file vs writes content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 move_file or write_file, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and brief description, but no explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying local Docker image storage), failure conditions (e.g., Dockerfile not found, network access), or the fact that the 'confirm' parameter may be required. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that performs image creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence ('Build a Docker image from a Dockerfile.') with no unnecessary words. All essential information about the core purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 optional parameters and an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description lacks usage context (when to use vs alternatives) and any mention of prerequisites or behavioral caveats, making it only minimally complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (tag, confirm, context, dockerfile) having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Build a Docker image from a Dockerfile' uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('Docker image from a Dockerfile'), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like docker_pull (pull existing image) and docker_run (run container), so there is no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 docker_pull or docker_compose_up. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon running) or exclusions (e.g., not for pulling images). It simply states what the tool does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the existence check without revealing return type (e.g., boolean), handling of directories vs. files, permission errors, or symlink behavior. This is a minimal description with no added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple predicate tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on edge cases (e.g., directories, permissions) or usage context. Given the low complexity, completeness is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (path) with a clear description ('The path to check.'). The tool description adds the workspace scoping context but does not add syntax or format details. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check whether a path exists within the workspace' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_info (which retrieves metadata) and list_directory (which lists contents). It states the exact condition being tested and the scope (workspace).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases such as verifying a path before reading/writing, nor does it contrast with related tools like file_info or read_file. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' without explaining recursion behavior, file traversal depth, case sensitivity, or whether it respects ignore files. The presence of an output schema is not disclosed in the description, and the description adds no context about side effects or read-only guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to scan. There is zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple purpose, an output schema, and fully described parameters, so core invocation is well covered. However, the description does not mention behavioral details such as recursive scanning or sorting, which could be relevant for a search tool. Given the simple nature, it is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (path, tags, extensions, max_results) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It earns the baseline score of 3 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('TODO/FIXME/HACK and similar tags in source files'), making the purpose unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from general-purpose search tools like search_files, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: this tool is for finding code markers in source files. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_files, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is functional but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention potential side effects, performance considerations, or required permissions. For a git command, it doesn't say it requires a repository or that it may be slow on large files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and object. It is highly concise and contains no extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-oriented tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description might be minimally sufficient. However, it lacks critical context such as preconditions (git repository) and behavior notes (read-only nature), which would be important with no annotations. The bare description is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Show'), the resource ('a file'), and the specific output ('line-by-line authorship information'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like git_log (commit history) or git_diff (changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for examining file authorship but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., git repo requirement) or exclusions (e.g., not for untracked files).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, default ordering, pagination, or whether drafts/prereleases 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the simple list function is adequately described, the lack of behavioral context (auth, pagination/limit behavior) and usage guidance leaves gaps. The output schema compensates for return values, but overall completeness is only average.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('releases for a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling GitHub tools that handle issues, PRs, and repo info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like github_list_issues or github_list_prs. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search GitHub repositories' and does not mention rate limits, authentication, sorting, output behavior, or any other operational traits. This leaves the agent guessing about important runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, contains no extraneous words, and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one required parameter and a full output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the minimal description leaves gaps about query syntax, rate limit considerations, and when to prefer this tool over siblings, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (query, sort, order, limit), so the schema already provides high coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly states the tool's action and resource with a specific verb. It distinguishes from similar GitHub tools by focusing on repository search, but does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the name and description—use it when you need to find GitHub repositories. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like github_repo_info or github_list_issues, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without noting potential side effects (e.g., launching a GUI window), failure modes, or whether it waits for the browser to close. This leaves the agent without insight into runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no verbosity. Every word is necessary and it is front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only one parameter, but it lacks annotations and an output schema in the provided context. The description is minimal and does not clarify return behavior or environmental prerequisites, making it barely adequate for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the 'url' parameter is described as 'The HTTP or HTTPS URL to open.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'Open a URL in the default system web browser.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fetch_page or http_get, which retrieve content, by specifying the action is to launch the default browser.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_url, fetch_page), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites like requiring a graphical display.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential behaviors such as file-not-found handling, truncation via max_bytes, encoding defaults, or any side effects beyond the basic read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for selection. However, it omits usage context and behavioral details like truncation, which are only present in the schema, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits a task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (path, encoding, max_bytes) with clear details, including defaults and truncation behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads and returns the contents of a text file, using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('text file'). It distinguishes from sibling file tools like write_file, delete_file, and list_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without any context for selection among file-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action but fails to mention key behaviors such as whether only filenames are matched (not content), how results are ordered, whether symlinks are followed, or what happens when no matches are found. The recursive and max_results parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds no additional context about the tool's operational quirks or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Search for files matching a glob pattern.' It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, contains no fluff, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a comprehensive schema and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the tool's core function, which allows an agent to select it for pattern-based file searches. However, it lacks any usage context relative to sibling tools like list_directory or tree, and does not mention the recursive behavior or result limits, which are only available in the schema. This makes it moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults and examples. The description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the schema's already complete documentation. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for files matching a glob pattern.' This uses a specific verb (search) and resource (files) with a precise matching criterion. It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory or tree by emphasizing pattern-based search rather than simple listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_directory is for full listings or that tree provides hierarchical views. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are given, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation via 'Return' but does not disclose behavior on missing tables, error handling, or whether the operation is guaranteed non-destructive beyond the implication of reading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description lacks contextual details such as error behavior or relationships to other sqlite tools. It is minimally adequate but not richly informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes both parameters (database and table) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb (Return) and resource (column definitions for a specific table). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sqlite_list_tables (which lists tables) and sqlite_query (which runs queries), making it immediately clear this inspects table structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sqlite_schema or sqlite_list_tables. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a minimal action. It does not mention protocol (ICMP/UDP), potential slowness, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a network diagnostic tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context that would help an agent select and invoke it correctly among network-related siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters include clear descriptions (host string, max_hops with default and range). The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics beyond restating 'host', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Trace the network route to a host' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like ping or dns_lookup. It concisely states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 ping or dns_lookup. It lacks any mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Return[s] logs' without mentioning whether logs are streamed or historical, how many lines are returned, whether it requires the compose file to be present, or whether it performs any side effects. The schema covers parameter details, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero redundancy or fluff. It efficiently captures the essential purpose without wasted words, matching the standard exemplified by high-scoring examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read-only nature of the tool, the full parameter documentation in the schema, and the existence of an output schema (which eliminates the need to describe return values), the description is adequately complete. It states the core function and leaves parameter details to the schema, making it sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (file, tail, service) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline for good schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('logs from Docker Compose services'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling `docker_logs` tool, which likely targets raw Docker container logs rather than Compose-defined services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 `docker_logs` or `docker_compose_up`/`down`. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., needing a running Compose project) nor explains scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning behavioral details such as container state changes (running to stopped), signal handling, or potential errors if the container is not running. The description is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the literal verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. It contains no superfluous words or repetition, earning perfect marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so the description plus schema adequately cover the essential invocation details. However, it lacks contextual notes about container lifecycle (e.g., that a stopped container still exists), which could be valuable but is not strictly necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'container' as 'The container name or ID.' (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning for the parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic load, yielding a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a running container.' uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('container'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docker_remove_container (which removes) and docker_run (which starts). It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that docker_stop is only for running containers, nor does it suggest docker_remove_container for deleting a container after stopping. There is no context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'return detailed information.' It does not mention what happens if the PID is invalid, whether elevated privileges are needed, or any platform-specific behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about error conditions and the exact scope of 'detailed information,' which could be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter pid is fully described in the schema, so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns detailed information about a single process, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list_processes by focusing on a specific process rather than all processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 list_processes. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the workspace boundary constraint but does not describe side effects such as creating a .git directory, behavior on an existing repository, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a single key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential information: purpose and a path restriction. It does not cover edge cases like reinitialization, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full documentation for the single 'path' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds the workspace boundary constraint, which is a useful semantic addition, but it does not significantly expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Initialise a new Git repository.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that clearly distinguishes it from sibling Git tools like git_branch, git_diff, and git_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual note is the workspace boundary constraint, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another Git tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It usefully discloses that both process-level and session-scoped overrides are returned, and that session overrides are marked with source: "session". However, it does not explicitly state side effects or safety aspects beyond 'list', which is a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a specific behavioral detail. Every word adds value, with no wasted text or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description adequately explains the purpose and return value distinctions. It could mention the filter parameter or reference the sibling tool, but the schema covers the parameter and the description is otherwise complete for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the filter_prefix parameter fully documented as an optional prefix filter, case-insensitive and empty to list all. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all environment variables visible to the MCP server process, using the specific verb 'list' and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get_environment_variable by saying 'all', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_environment_variable, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative suggestions. It simply describes what the tool does without recommending scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'Move or rename a file' without mentioning important aspects such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, reversibility, or the role of the 'confirm' parameter. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff. It is an example of efficient writing that conveys the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description fails to explain critical behavioral context such as what happens when the destination exists, whether the source is deleted, or how the 'confirm' parameter works. For a file mutation tool, this leaves important gaps in the agent's understanding. The description is too minimal to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (src, dst, confirm) have basic descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already provides adequate parameter info, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (move or rename) and the resource (a file) with the scope 'within the workspace'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_file and delete_file by specifying the move/rename operation, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by limiting operations to 'within the workspace', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_file or delete_file. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, error conditions (e.g., if the path already exists), permissions, or dependencies (e.g., Python installation). This falls short of what an agent needs to predict the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks key contextual details such as behavior when the path already exists or whether a specific Python version is used. While the output schema covers return values, the description is still thin on preconditions and edge cases, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds no information about the 'path' parameter beyond what the input schema already provides. Since the schema description covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and no additional meaning is required from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 ('a new Python virtual environment'). It is specific and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like activate_venv and deactivate_venv by focusing on the creation step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its clear purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or follow-up steps (e.g., activating the venv after creation). The usage context is implicitly obvious from the tool name but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return dict keys, which is useful, but it omits potential side effects, failure conditions, or prerequisites like Docker daemon availability. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with two sentences and an example. It front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter info tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It provides the return structure and an example. It could mention that Docker must be installed/running, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, and the example confirms no arguments are expected. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Return' and resource 'Docker system-wide information' clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling docker_version, which focuses on version details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. A higher score would require explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_version or docker_logs. It lacks any context for selection, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return metadata,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose potential authentication needs, rate limits, error behaviors (e.g., 404 for missing repo), or the structure of the returned metadata beyond what an output schema might cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy, and it is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so lack of return value detail is acceptable. However, the description provides no context about when this tool is appropriate, potential prerequisites, or edge cases. It is minimally complete but lacks helpful behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (owner and repo) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, such as format constraints or examples, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema covers the parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns metadata for a GitHub repository with a specific verb (Return) and resource (GitHub repository metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues, github_get_pr, and github_search_repos, which focus on different GitHub data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and sibling tools imply it is for general repository metadata lookup. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, but the intended use is reasonably clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It specifies the returned dictionary keys and includes an example, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository) or clarify what the 'output' field contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return dict and example are useful, though the return keys may duplicate the output schema, slightly reducing value added.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return structure. However, it lacks explicit context about repository requirements and error behavior, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, and the empty input schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'List all tags in the repository.' It distinguishes itself from sibling git_* tools by focusing specifically on tags, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like git_log or git_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'list' and the resource 'tags,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns data and lists included items, but it does not explicitly say it is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, limitations, or side effects. For a simple info tool, the behavior is mostly clear, but the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short paragraphs: the main action, a bullet-like list of fields, and an example. This is appropriately minimal and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema (as indicated in context). The description states the return type and high-level structure (status, data). It could mention potential platform differences or errors, but for a simple system info call, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, for which the baseline is 4. The example 'system_info()' makes this explicit, and the empty input schema needs no further explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return comprehensive system information' and enumerates specific fields (OS version, hostname, uptime, Python version, architecture, processor brand). It positions the tool as a general-purpose system info aggregator distinct from specific info tools like cpu_info or disk_info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as cpu_info, disk_info, memory_info, or python_version. There are no alternatives mentioned, no exclusions, and no scenario-based guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses one key behavior—creating parent directories—which is valuable since standard mkdir fails without parents. However, it does not state what happens if the directory already exists, permissions required, or error handling, leaving important 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and adds the essential detail about parent directories, making it maximally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with a clear schema and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. While it leaves edge cases (e.g., existing directories) unspecified, the essential purpose is well covered, making it sufficiently complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a clear description for the single 'path' parameter ('The directory path to create'), and the description does not add further nuance. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a directory') and the resource ('directory'), with the specific qualifier 'and all necessary parent directories' distinguishing it from a plain mkdir. This precisely differentiates it from sibling file operations like delete_file or list_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 run_cmd with mkdir or other file-related tools. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The description only states the basic operation and does not disclose potential side effects, output format, error behaviors (e.g., what if container not running), or whether a TTY is allocated. This is a significant gap for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It contains no redundant information and is easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description adequately conveys the core purpose, and the presence of sibling tools provides enough contextual distinction. Minor gaps like specifying that the container must be running are implicitly covered by the phrase 'running container'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (container and command) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a command inside a running container' clearly states a specific verb (execute), a resource (command), and the scope (inside a running container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_run (which creates a new container) and docker_logs (which retrieves logs), so it scores high on purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'running container', which suggests using this tool when a container is already running and a command needs to be executed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over docker_run or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., modifying the git index), reversibility, or requirements. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the operation, and the schema covers the parameter details. No critical information is missing, though additional context about the staging area could push it higher.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the only parameter ('files') with a default and description. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stage files for commit' clearly specifies the action (staging) and the resource (files for commit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_commit or git_diff. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (before committing) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. 'For commit' suggests a workflow context, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that restoring a file overwrites local changes or that switching branches may fail if the working tree has conflicts. This is a significant omission given the potentially destructive nature of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the action verbs. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of git checkout—including its dual nature, potential to overwrite uncommitted changes, and reliance on working tree state—the description is too terse. It does not explain failure modes, output, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage and already describes the parameter ('A branch name to switch to, or a file path to restore.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's dual purpose: switching to a branch or restoring a file to its last committed state. It uses specific verbs ('switch', 'restore') and distinct resources ('branch', 'file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_branch or git_create_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the two main scenarios in which to use this tool (switching branches or restoring files), providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are evident and no direct competing sibling tool exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'show,' but does not disclose details like default behavior (unstaged vs. staged changes), return format, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious, so a moderate score is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete regarding what this tool can actually do. It claims to show changes 'between commits, working tree, or index,' but the schema only offers boolean toggles for staged and stat_only, with no way to specify arbitrary commit ranges. This omission makes the description misleading about the tool's true capabilities. It also leaves out default behavior (e.g., unstaged changes by default).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (staged, file_path, stat_only) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, but since the schema already fully documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Show changes between commits, working tree, or index.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('changes'), and it distinguishes from siblings like git_log and git_status by focusing specifically on diffs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to view changes between various states), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like git_log or git_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear enough for a simple diff tool, but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get a specific GitHub issue by number,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only fetch operation, the description, combined with a complete input schema and output schema, is nearly sufficient. It lacks mention of authentication prerequisites, which is a minor gap for a GitHub API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (owner, repo, number) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'number' aligns with the schema but adds no extra detail about parameter formats or relationships. Therefore, it is at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a specific GitHub issue by number'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues (listing) and github_create_issue (creating).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single issue by number, but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., github_list_issues for multiple issues). It is clear enough for a simple read operation, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior (listing packages) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention scope (e.g., current environment) or potential failure modes. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the tool's purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are already documented. The description plus schema are sufficient for correct invocation of this simple, read-only tool. However, it lacks context about when to use this over similar tools like pip_freeze, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully describes the 'format' parameter with its default and allowed values. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'installed Python packages', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_package or uninstall_package. It is unambiguous and focuses on a read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 pip_freeze. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation and mentions resource usage, but does not explicitly state safety profile, default behavior, or that it returns a snapshot. This is adequate but minimal for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (3 optional params, no enums, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It is slightly terse but the schema covers parameters and the output schema covers returns. It missing explicit mention of filtering/sorting capabilities, but those are in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about resource usage which relates to sort_by memory/cpu, but it does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List running processes with resource usage' uses a specific verb ('list') and clear resource ('running processes'), and adds scope ('with resource usage') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_process (single process) and system-wide info tools (cpu_info, memory_info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_process should be used for individual process details, nor does it state any filtering or sorting capabilities that might affect selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states that it runs an npm script, without disclosing whether it modifies the workspace, what output is expected, whether it waits for completion, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; maximal information density for the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description conveys the core action. It could mention working directory context, but that is implied for npm scripts. Adequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds nothing beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers 100% of parameters and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('npm script defined in package.json'), distinguishing it from generic script runners like run_script and from npm module runners like npx_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the description and name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as run_script or npx_run. No exclusions or comparison provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the tool aggregates read-only analyses and returns a structured report, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention performance implications for large projects, error handling, or the exact contents of the report beyond the three analyses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Second sentence elaborates on the components. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient scope but could be more precise about what 'project type detection' means and how this relates to analyze_project sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters; path has a clear description. Tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Return', resource 'comprehensive project overview', and explicitly lists components (project type detection, LOC counting, TODO/FIXME listing). This distinguishes it from sibling count_lines_of_code and find_todos, but does not clearly distinguish from analyze_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use (when a combined overview is needed) by listing what it combines, but provides no explicit when-not or alternatives. It doesn't mention that running count_lines_of_code and find_todos separately could serve other needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return of CREATE statements without disclosing behavior for missing databases/tables, output format, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool in this context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. It lacks explicit alternative differentiation but is otherwise functional for the given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the CREATE statement(s) for tables in a database.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('CREATE statements'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqlite_list_tables or sqlite_table_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: when one needs DDL for tables, this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the operation ('clone') and a constraint (destination within workspace), but fails to disclose typical behaviors such as whether it overwrites existing directories, requires network access or credentials, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a filesystem-modifying operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant words. The core action and the key constraint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a standard git operation, and the description includes the critical workspace boundary constraint. However, with no annotations, no explicit output schema details, and no mention of side effects or error handling, it is only minimally complete. An agent might need to infer common clone behavior, but it is not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting both 'url' and 'destination' parameters with descriptions. The description adds the workspace boundary constraint relevant to 'destination', but otherwise does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Clone a remote repository into a local directory.' The verb 'clone' is specific and the resource is identified ('remote repository'), distinguishing it from other git tools like git_init or git_pull. The additional constraint about the workspace boundary adds useful scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to clone a remote repository locally. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can select it without confusion. The workspace boundary constraint also informs usage expectations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the confirmation requirement when security.require_confirmation is enabled, which is a useful behavioral caveat. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as failure modes (e.g., nothing staged) or the fact that commit mutates repository state beyond what the schema's confirm parameter already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise at two sentences, with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the confirmation note is placed as a secondary, clearly separated warning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the output schema exists to explain return values. However, the description omits preconditions such as being inside a Git repository or needing staged changes (unless all_changes=true is set). This makes the description functional but not fully complete for an agent that lacks domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value—it reiterates that the commit uses staged changes but does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., how all_changes affects staging). This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a commit with the staged changes' clearly states the action (create a commit) and the resource (staged changes), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling git tools like git_add or git_push, which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: you would use this tool when you have staged changes and want to record them as a commit. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like git_add (for staging) or git_push (for uploading), so the guidance is only moderately clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return dict structure (status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, duration_ms), which adds transparency, but it does not mention potential errors or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by return format and an example. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, simple output object), the description is adequately complete. It explains the return format and includes an example, which is sufficient for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the installed npm version, which is a specific verb+resource. It is more specific than a generic 'npm info' but does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose—use this when you need the npm version. No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over npm_info or other sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return dict structure, implying subprocess execution (exit_code, stdout, stderr, duration_ms), but does not explicitly state this or explain the meaning of each field. It doesn't mention side effects or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose, a return type breakdown, and a minimal example. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks clarity on how to interpret the returned fields (which key contains the version) and does not differentiate from python_info. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return the current Python interpreter version' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pip_version and node_version, though python_info could be overlapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 python_info or run_python_script. It simply states what it does without context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose what happens if the package is not installed, whether the operation is read-only or might have side effects, which package manager ecosystem applies (pip, npm, etc.), or any error behavior. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the input and expected result. However, it omits behavior for missing packages and the exact output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. Slight deduction for the unstated failure case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the single parameter 'package' is fully described with a type and example. The description text adds nothing beyond establishing that 'package' refers to a package name to check, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('check') and the resource ('package'), plus the specific outcome ('return its version'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_packages or install_package, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to verify if a specific package is installed and get its version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is easy to infer from the stated purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (dict with status and data), but does not mention permissions, OS compatibility, or error behavior. For a read-only info tool, the return structure adds some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return structure and example are relevant and add clarity without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter info tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return structure and provides an example, but lacks usage context or alternative comparisons. Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns disk partition information and usage for each drive, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cpu_info or system_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 system_info. It only gives an example call, which shows how to use it but not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists return keys and an example call, which is useful, but it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only command or what happens if Docker is not installed. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, though the return keys imply command execution and 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a return keys section, and an example call. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, and the example call clarifies usage, though it offers no contextual information about prerequisites or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter information needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning the installed Docker version. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like docker_info or docker_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 docker_info. It simply states what it does without contextual cues or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metadata fields and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., nonexistent path), symlink handling, or permission requirements. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the main action and then lists metadata fields efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple metadata tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what input is needed. It could mention error cases, but the low complexity and presence of output schema reduce the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes path as 'Path to the file or directory.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return metadata for a file or directory' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the metadata fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or file_exists, even without explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use it (when metadata is needed), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like file_exists or list_directory. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich; no contradictions exist with annotations since none are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description is sufficient to convey the core function. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It lacks a bit of contextual guidance about when to choose this over github_list_prs, but for a simple fetch operation, it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (owner, repo, number) already described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 'by number' which restates the 'number' parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('specific pull request') and scope ('by number'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_list_prs' which lists all PRs, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by number' implies usage when a specific PR number is known, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_prs or github_get_issue. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the explicit confirmation requirement under security.require_confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like modifying the environment, network access, or potential impact on existing packages.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note without any wordiness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple package installer with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key edge case (confirmation). It does not elaborate on interactions between parameters like version and upgrade, but those are not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the confirmation requirement, which is already captured in the confirm parameter's schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Install a Python package with pip.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like uninstall_package and npm_install, which handle different ecosystems or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose implies when to use it (installing Python packages), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be better. The mention of a confirmation requirement is more behavioral than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format by listing the keys (status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, duration_ms), which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior when Node.js is not installed, possible exit code meanings, or any side effects (though likely none). It provides some transparency but not comprehensive behavior details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief: two sentences plus a minimal example. Every sentence adds value — the first states the purpose, the second specifies the return keys, and the example demonstrates invocation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter utility, the description is nearly complete. It includes the purpose and the full expected return structure. It lacks only a note about error conditions (e.g., Node not installed), but for a tool of this simplicity, the provided information is sufficient to use it correctly. The output schema presumably reinforces the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the description needs no parameter explanation. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is a 4. The description correctly includes an example call node_version() to confirm no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the installed Node.js version.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and a specific resource ('installed Node.js version'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like python_version or npm_version. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or which alternatives might be more appropriate. While the tool's purpose is self-evident, it does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools. For example, it doesn't mention that this is a simple version check or that npm_version might be relevant for Node package versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool parses and returns, implying a non-destructive read operation, but does not explicitly mention that it does not modify the file, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., missing file). The behavior is adequately conveyed for a simple read tool, but not richly detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It lists the returned fields, and the output schema would provide structure. It could briefly mention the default path behavior, but that is already in the schema, so no critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats that it parses package.json, while the schema already documents the path parameter and default. No additional semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Parse and summarise a package.json file' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from generic file readers like read_file and sibling tools for other config files like read_pyproject_toml.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context (summarizing package.json) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file or project_summary. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the parsing and summarization action and the returned fields, but does not mention error handling, file-not-found behavior, or explicitly confirm that the file is not modified. The read-only nature is implied by the name and 'parse' but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and lists expected outputs in the second, with no redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and the default file path. It could mention alternatives or edge cases, but for a basic read-only parser this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb (parse and summarise) and resource (pyproject.toml). It also lists the specific outputs (project name, version, description, dependencies, tool configurations), which distinguishes it from generic file readers like read_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a summary of pyproject.toml is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like read_file and read_package_json exist, but no guidance is provided to choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does mention the security validation pipeline and automatic blocking of dangerous commands, which is valuable. However, it omits side-effect risks, error behavior, and environment assumptions, so transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two crisp sentences. The first sentence provides immediate actionable information, and the second adds essential security context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter command executor, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, output, and safety behavior. The presence of an output schema handles return-value details. It falls slightly short on explicitly describing when to prefer this over sibling tools, but that is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (command and timeout) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, keeping the score at the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a PowerShell command and return the output,' specifying the exact shell and expected outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cmd (CMD) and run_python_script (Python), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_cmd or run_script. The usage is implied by the tool name and the stated purpose, but there are no when/when-not criteria or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that it returns a tree view and honors a maximum depth, but it does not mention behavior like hidden-file filtering (though default is in schema), symlink handling, or output formatting. Acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose and key constraint. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has a rich input schema, and presumably has an output schema to define the result format. The description is adequate for basic selection, though it lacks guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (path, max_depth, show_hidden) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('directory tree view') with a clear qualifier ('up to a specified depth'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from flat-listing siblings like list_directory or file_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a hierarchical directory view is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_directory or other file-listing tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with status, data including cores, usage%, frequency), but does not mention any potential side effects, failure modes, or permission needs. For a simple read-only query, this is minimal but acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Returns section and a clear example. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description completely covers its behavior. It explains the return keys and provides an example, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns CPU usage statistics and core information with a specific verb ('Return') and resource (CPU). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_info and disk_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_info or memory_info. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, leaving 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the response body is truncated at 10,000 characters. With no annotations provided, this is helpful, but it does not cover other potential behaviors like error handling or redirects, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the truncation caveat efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low in complexity, the schema fully describes parameters, and an output schema exists to detail return values. The description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral limitation, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (url, headers, timeout) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an HTTP GET request and returns the response, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like fetch_page or check_url, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Useful for testing APIs and web endpoints" provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it is not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (dict with status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, duration_ms), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions, and annotations are absent so the description carries the full burden. This is partially transparent but lacks deeper explanation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured return format and an example call. Every element earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff. The example is useful for immediate invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the existence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, the description fully covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to call it. The return format is even specified in prose, making it self-contained. No crucial gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to document, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return the current pip version' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling version tools like python_version and node_version by explicitly naming pip. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare with sibling version tools. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: counting total lines, distinguishing code from non-code lines, and grouping by file extension. This is clear, though it does not address performance, recursion depth, or handling of binary files, but for a line-counting tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and uses only two sentences. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderate complexity with three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and output granularity. It does not detail the return format, but the presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool make this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions and defaults for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Count lines of code across the codebase.' It clearly states what is counted (total, code, blank, comment lines) per file extension, which distinguishes it from other file-analysis tools like search_files or analyze_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when line counts are needed), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the precedence order (session-scoped overrides first, then fallback to inherited environment), which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It adds necessary context about precedence that is not obvious from the schema or tool name. However, it omits mention of behavior when the variable is not set (e.g., return null, throw, empty string), though the output schema likely covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the parameter ('case-insensitive on Windows'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Return the value of an environment variable.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the fallback behavior distinguishes it from listing tools like list_environment_variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching a single variable value and provides contextual behavior about override precedence, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., list_environment_variables) or mention exclusions/limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It accurately indicates read-only inspection of listening ports, but it omits potential details like OS-specific behavior, permission requirements, or the fact that it may return both TCP and UDP in a single call. The description does not contradict any schema information but adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence: 'List locally open (listening) TCP and UDP ports.' Every word is necessary and provides clear information without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema exists (per context signals), so return values need not be described. The description covers the essential purpose and default scope. Minor gaps like platform compatibility or edge cases are not critical for this simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the single parameter include_remote fully described as 'If True, also include established connections.' The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists locally open (listening) TCP and UDP ports, a specific verb ('List') and resource ('locally open TCP/UDP ports'). This distinguishes it from sibling network tools like ping/traceroute, which focus on connectivity checks rather than port enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it targets local listening ports. Although no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, the scope is self-evident and no sibling overlaps exist. The include_remote parameter implies a default behavior (only listening ports), reinforcing the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content of entries (command, tool name, exit code, timestamp, duration) and the 500-entry cap, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by key behavioral details. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, a single optional parameter, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and constraints. It could mention session scoping explicitly, but 'current session' is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter (limit) with a clear description, range, and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('recent command history for the current session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'clear_session_history' and 'get_session_info' by focusing on history retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it tells you exactly what the tool does, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., clear_session_history) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Check') and the return structure, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential network calls, or whether the tool itself consumes rate limit. A simple statement confirming no side effects would have increased transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a clear return description, and a usage example. Every line earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the return keys and gives an example. It does not discuss error conditions or authentication nuances, but these are likely covered by the output schema and the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides an example call with no arguments, which reinforces the schema. There is no need for additional parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 and resource: 'Check the current GitHub API rate limit status.' It is distinct from sibling tools like github_auth_status and other github_* tools, and it also specifies the return format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need rate limit status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since no alternative rate-limit tool exists among siblings, the lack of explicit guidance is not critical, but a clear 'use this when...' would have improved it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool shows remote URLs and provides the return dict structure, but it does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, prerequisites, or behavior outside a git repository. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using one clear sentence followed by the return format. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no extraneous text, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what is returned, but it could be slightly more useful by noting that it operates on the current repository or by mentioning failure behavior if no remotes exist or if not in a git directory. Nonetheless, it suffices for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately omits parameter details, and the schema already documents the empty parameter set. This meets the baseline for tools with no params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: showing configured remote repositories and their URLs. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_status or git_log, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in contexts where remote repository information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions like being inside a git repository. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is sufficient for this simple tool. However, it does not disclose any potential caveats such as permission needs or platform limitations beyond the 'Windows' mention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with only two optional parameters and full schema coverage. The description adequately explains the core function, and the output schema covers return values. It does not mention the filtering capability, but the schema already documents that, so a 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because both parameters (filter_name and status_filter) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it relies fully on the schema—this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'Windows services' plus the informative detail 'with their status.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like list_processes or list_packages by specifying the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's use case obvious: when you need to see Windows services and their status. Since there is no sibling tool for services, explicit alternatives are unnecessary. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only fetch operation ('Fetch information'), but provides no details on network behavior, potential errors, or response structure. It relies on the output schema to document return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: one documented parameter and an output schema. The description adequately explains the core operation. It could have mentioned that it queries the live npm registry versus local installation, but that is largely implied by 'from the registry' and the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the 'package' parameter with a clear description ('The package name to look up'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'npm package from the registry', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like npm_install (installs) or npm_list (lists local packages). This unambiguously states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: it is used when you need information about an npm package from the registry. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list shows other npm tools with distinct purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and output, but does not mention potential side effects, execution privileges, error handling, or that arbitrary commands can be run. This is similar to the mid-tier example where mutation tools lacked safety/reversibility details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command-execution tool, the description covers the purpose and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return-value documentation, and parameter descriptions cover the inputs. It lacks deep behavioral caveats, but given the tool's simplicity and available structured metadata, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both command and timeout, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra contextual meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Execute a CMD command and return the output') which clearly defines what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like run_powershell by explicitly mentioning CMD context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'legacy batch operations, tools that behave differently under CMD, or when PowerShell is unavailable.' This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two important behaviors: workspace boundary enforcement and virtual environment selection. However, it does not mention potential side effects of script execution, error handling, or how output is returned. This is moderate transparency, lacking richer behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides valuable context (boundary, virtual env). No filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential context for successful invocation: what the tool does, the workspace constraint, and the Python environment behavior. Given that an output schema exists (handling return values) and the parameter schema is comprehensive, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It loses a point because it does not explicitly address how failures are reported or whether the script runs in a subprocess, which are relevant for a code execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (path, args, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level information, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Execute a Python script file.' The verb 'execute' combined with the resource 'Python script' is specific and distinguishes it from generic tools like run_cmd or run_powershell. The name reinforces the purpose, but the description adds the key distinction of being Python-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage by noting the script must be within the workspace boundary and that it uses the active virtual environment's Python. This helps the agent understand constraints and prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about path resolution and workspace restrictions, but it omits other behavioral traits like whether execution is synchronous, how errors are reported, or whether side effects are possible. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with relevant constraints. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool executes script files and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description covers supported file types, path handling, and workspace boundary. Missing details like timeout behavior or environment setup are partially captured by schema defaults and context, making the overall description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described. The description adds extra meaning for 'path' by explaining its resolution relative to the current working directory, but it does not enhance understanding of 'args' or 'timeout' beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute') and the specific resource ('PowerShell (.ps1) or batch (.bat/.cmd) script file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cmd and run_powershell, which target inline commands rather than script files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it handles script files with specific extensions and enforces workspace boundary constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral constraints (directory must exist, workspace boundary, relative path resolution) but does not explain failure modes, whether the change persists for the session, or any side effects. This is partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, focused paragraphs. It opens with the main purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint or detail. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It is sufficiently complete, though it does not explicitly address error conditions or alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the path parameter, but the description adds significant semantics by stating relative path resolution and the workspace boundary requirement. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'absolute or relative' note, earning a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Change the current session working directory.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_working_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining the constraints on the path (must exist, workspace boundary), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose but lacks direct usage recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose details like recursive search, file extensions matched, or handling of permission issues. It is not misleading but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent that results will be a search outcome for SQLite files. However, it leaves out details about recursion or file extensions, which would be helpful but not essential given the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter search_path with a description and default value, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'SQLite database files' within the workspace, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sqlite_query or sqlite_list_tables that operate on database content. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage when locating SQLite database files, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, though no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like search_files are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not disclose details like error handling, whether system tables are included, or output format (though an output schema exists). It is minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and directly states the target, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action, and output schema present), the description is sufficient for basic usage. It could mention edge cases like views or system tables, but that is not essential and would add noise.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'database' as 'Path to the .db or .sqlite file.' The description adds no extra semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all tables in a SQLite database file'), making its purpose unambiguous. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like sqlite_table_info (which lists column details) and sqlite_schema (which shows schema objects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: it lists tables in a SQLite file, which is sufficient to know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring sqlite_table_info for column details, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the return structure (dict with status, data containing version/build/edition). However, it does not state safety (read-only), platform assumptions, or potential failure modes, which would increase transparency further.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured, with a clear action sentence followed by a Returns section and example. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, existing output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the output keys and gives a usage example. Missing minor context like platform requirement (Windows-only) but that is implied by the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the description correctly shows an empty call example. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no param-specific details because none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Return detailed Windows version information' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling version tools like docker_version or python_version. The name itself reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when Windows version info is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like system_info or other version-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the mechanism (checking characteristic files) and implies a read-only operation through verbs like 'detect' and 'identifies', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or describe edge-case behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful list of supported project types without excess verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it works, and examples of supported types. It doesn't need to detail return values due to the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema (project root directory, defaults to cwd), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics; schema coverage is 100%, warranting baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'detect' and clearly states it identifies project type, framework, and configuration files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_package_json or project_summary by focusing on automatic detection across multiple languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is used to quickly identify what kind of project is at a path. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (HEAD) and the general behavior (accessibility check, header inspection), but does not mention error handling, redirects, timeouts, or any side effects. For a network tool, this is a moderate transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and clarifies the purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema available). The description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, and the sibling list does not introduce ambiguity that would require further explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the only parameter 'url' with 'The URL to inspect' at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send an HTTP HEAD request') and the resource ('URL'), with a specific purpose: 'verify URL accessibility and inspect response headers.' This distinguishes it from siblings like http_get and fetch_page, which imply different HTTP methods or full-page fetching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'to verify URL accessibility and inspect response headers' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when a lightweight HEAD request is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top tier of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the added note about indicating the current branch is useful behavioral context. No side effects are apparent or need disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, this description is sufficient. It covers the key behavior, and the existing schema handles parameter details and return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a well-documented boolean parameter. The description's 'local (or all)' adds slight contextual meaning to all_branches, but essentially restates what the schema already says, so it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches'), and clarifies the scope ('local or all') while also noting it indicates the current branch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_create_branch or git_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: you use this tool when you need to see branches. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 explicitly states two behavioral effects: creating a branch and switching to it, which reveals that the tool mutates repository state and changes the current working branch. This is valuable beyond just 'create', though it omits edge-case behaviors like error handling when the branch already exists or branch naming constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence: 'Create a new branch and switch to it.' Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, making it maximally concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema fully documents both parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are covered). The description's brevity is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly, without needing additional details about output format or complex side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('The new branch name' and 'Base branch to branch from. Defaults to HEAD'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so with high schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Create a new branch') and an additional behavior ('switch to it') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_branch (which likely lists branches) and git_checkout (which switches existing branches). It names the resource (branch) and the verb (create), fully capturing the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: an agent should use this when it wants to create a new branch and switch to it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using git_checkout to switch to an existing branch or git_branch for listing branches. The context is clear but no exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with status and data) which adds some value, but it omits any error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool the risk is low, but the description is still limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a minimal example. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return details are concise. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only memory info tool, the description provides purpose, return keys, and usage example. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to be exhaustive, and it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description includes an example showing no arguments, which reinforces the parameterless usage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately complements this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States clearly that it returns RAM and virtual memory statistics with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like cpu_info and disk_info by focusing on memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The context implies it is used to fetch memory stats, but there is no mention of exclusions or when a different tool might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavior that it is a session-level register, not a shell activation, and precisely states the effect on subsequent tool calls. It could add details about validation or persistence but is transparent about the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second sentence adding a necessary distinction and the mechanism. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (per context signals), so return values need not be described. The description sufficiently covers what it does, what it doesn't do, and its effect on subsequent calls. It does not mention prerequisites like the venv existing, but the low complexity makes that omission acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'path' parameter (default '.venv'). The tool description adds no significant semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 ('Register') and resource ('virtual environment'), and immediately distinguishes it from shell-level activation. It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_venv and deactivate_venv by specifying that it only records the path for subsequent python_* and pip_* calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use: before running python_* or pip_* tools so they use the venv interpreter/pip. It explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do (shell activation), which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like deactivate_venv, but the context is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with status and data), the hostname and adapters list, and that only active adapters are included. It does not explicitly state side-effect free behavior, but the tool's nature makes that clear, and the return format adds useful behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clarifying detail about IPv4/IPv6, a Returns block, and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, the return format, and an example. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further. Minor gap: it does not explain possible 'status' values or error conditions, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly shows an empty parameter list and an example call with no arguments, leaving no ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return local network adapter information and IP addresses', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes this tool from siblings like dns_lookup, ping, and get_open_ports. It further clarifies scope with 'all IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for each active adapter'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description: use when you need local adapter/IP info. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., system_info or dns_lookup), and no when-not-to-use scenarios are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It wisely mentions the required token permissions and the possibility of a confirmation step, adding valuable context beyond the simple 'create' action. It does not cover rate limits or error responses, but the essentials are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by key prerequisites. No unnecessary words, perfectly structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the action, auth requirement, and confirmation behavior. The output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so return values are handled. The only minor gap is lack of detail on failure modes, but it remains complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, leaving the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new GitHub issue' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_issues and github_get_issue. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by specifying the requirement for a GITHUB_TOKEN with issue write permissions and noting that explicit confirmation may be needed per config. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, this is the only issue-creation tool among siblings, making the usage context sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does so by highlighting the 'security.require_confirmation' setting and the need for explicit confirmation, which is a critical behavioral aspect. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting remote history if force is used, though the schema covers that. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only necessary behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple git operation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the key confirmation behavior and the core purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning that the push operation is a mutation of the remote, but since this is standard and the output schema exists, the current level is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters (force, branch, remote, confirm) clearly. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Push commits to a remote repository.' This uses a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_pull (pull) and git_commit (local commit). The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when confirmation is required, including the default behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious and the confirmation guidance helps the agent decide when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning that this is for sending local commits to a remote, which is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait–that write operations require explicit confirmation–which is essential for an arbitrary SQL execution tool. It does not detail error handling or return formats, but the confirmation policy is significant and not fully captured by the schema alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the purpose and the key safety requirement. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, an output schema, and important safety implications, the description covers the core purpose and confirmation requirement. It does not mention transactional behavior or specific return value details, but the output schema and confirmation policy suffice for most usage contexts. It is appropriately complete for an execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the relationship between write operations and the confirm parameter, but it does not provide syntax or additional meaning beyond that. This is a baseline 3 given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute any SQL statement against a SQLite database' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sqlite_query by emphasizing support for write operations, making its scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that write operations require explicit confirmation, implying when to use this tool for writes and that confirmation is mandatory. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like sqlite_query for read-only tasks or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and the use of --yes to avoid interactive prompts, which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens if confirm is false, effects on dependencies, or potential errors, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is just two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the behavioral detail in a second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple uninstall tool, the description adequately covers the core action and confirmation requirement. The existing output schema and 100% parameter coverage reduce the need for more detail. It could mention side effects on dependencies, but this is not essential for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the confirm parameter causes pip to run with --yes, which is not in the schema. It does not add detail for 'package', but the schema already describes it clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Uninstall'), resource ('Python package'), and method ('with pip'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like install_package and list_packages. It is direct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is used to uninstall Python packages and explicitly notes the confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that script, style, and HTML tags are stripped, which is key behavioral information. It doesn't discuss error handling or redirects, but for a simple read tool, it provides sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, first states purpose, second explains the stripping behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple 2-param tool and an output schema present, the description covers the core functionality. It doesn't need to detail return values due to output schema. Complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what schema provides; baseline 3 due to 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Fetch', 'extract') and resource ('web page', 'body text'). It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_page or http_get by specifying the extraction of human-readable text and stripping of markup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage: when you need clean text from a web page. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria like 'use fetch_page for raw HTML'. Clear context but no exclusions, so score 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates the read-only nature via 'snapshot', lists the exact data included, and specifies the return structure (dict with keys status and data). It does not elaborate on error conditions, but for a simple informational tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear list of included data, a return format line, and a minimal example. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter snapshot tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the exact data contents, the return format, and a usage example, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by including a no-argument example call (get_session_info()), leaving no ambiguity about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a snapshot of the current session state.' It then lists the exact fields included, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_history or get_working_directory that target narrower or different aspects of the session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a session snapshot is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_session_history or get_working_directory, nor does it mention exclusions. Guidance is limited to the implied context of 'current session state'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on the responsibility of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns whether a token is configured and, if so, the authenticated user's login name, including the exact keys in the returned dict. This is transparent about output, though it does not mention potential network calls, errors, or side effects—minor for a status check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief return description, and a clear example. Every line contributes useful information without redundancy, and the most important details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the exact return structure, and includes an example. There is no missing information about inputs or outputs that would hinder an agent from using it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately includes an example call with no arguments, confirming that no inputs are needed. There is nothing more to clarify since the schema is already empty and fully covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check GitHub authentication status and token validity.' It also indicates what it returns, distinguishing it from the many other GitHub-related tools in the sibling list, which focus on issues, PRs, repos, and rate limits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used to verify authentication, but it does not explicitly say when to use it relative to other GitHub tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it could advise checking auth status before operations that require a token, but no such guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the tool's read-only nature (returning status, not modifying anything), what it reports (staged/unstaged/untracked files), and the structure of the return value including keys like status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, and duration_ms. This is thorough for a simple status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary, followed by a brief explanation of what it shows, a returns section, and an example. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple, well-known behavior, the description is complete. It explains the return value, provides an example, and adequately covers the tool's purpose. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description's explicit return-key enumeration adds further clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description includes an example call `git_status()` showing no arguments are needed. This matches the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns the current Git working tree status and explicitly describes what it shows: staged, unstaged, and untracked files. This is specific, uses a clear verb+resource, and distinguishes it from sibling Git tools like git_log or git_diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context about what the tool does, making its use case obvious, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no alternative tool referenced, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is irreversible and mentions the confirmation requirement, which is critical behavioral context. It does not detail error cases or permissions, but the key destructive trait is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds only the essential caveat about irreversibility and confirmation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, irreversibility, and confirmation. An output schema exists, so return values are handled there. Minor gaps include error handling and prerequisites, but these are not critical for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the confirmation requirement to the 'confirm' parameter, explaining when it is needed. This goes beyond simply repeating the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('file'), and clarifies the irreversible nature of the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_file or copy_file, which also operate on files but with different outcomes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for permanent file deletion, and the irreversible nature sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (append), the create-if-missing behavior, the encoding default, and the return dict structure. It does not mention error handling or permission issues, but for a simple file operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a clear docstring with a summary, args, returns, and examples. It is slightly verbose with the Args/Returns layout, but every section adds value, and the examples are helpful without being excessive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, return format, and includes examples. The tool is simple, and the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and defaults, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by describing each parameter: 'path: Path to the file', 'content: Content to append', 'encoding: File encoding. Default: "utf-8"'. It also supplies usage examples, fully clarifying parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Append content to an existing file (or create it if it does not exist).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'create if not exists' detail distinguishes it from overwrite-style tools like write_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for usage by explaining the append-or-create behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It implies when to use it (e.g., when you want to preserve existing content) without directly contrasting with write_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that only command history is cleared and that working directory, environment variables, and other session state remain unaffected. It also documents the return value format, which is helpful. It could mention whether the action is reversible, but for clearing history that is likely understood.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it leads with the main action, clarifies the scope, gives the return type, and provides an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter tool with no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, non-effects, and return format. It is complete and self-sufficient, giving the agent all necessary information to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds context by explaining the operation but does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate, as the example shows the tool is called without arguments, matching the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Clear the session command history,' which uses a specific verb ('clear') and a clear resource ('session command history'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_session_history and get_session_info, which handle retrieval rather than clearing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explicitly stating what is affected and what is not, implying when to use it (when clearing history is desired). It does not name alternative tools, but the scope clarification ('Only the command history is cleared') serves as a clear exclusion of other session state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side effect (python_* and pip_* tools switch to system Python) and the return shape, adding useful context beyond the bare tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences plus an example, with the main action stated first. Every sentence adds necessary detail without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, empty schema, and available output schema, the description adequately covers invocation and expected behavior. It states the effect and return format, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters, and none are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deactivates the current session's virtual environment, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like activate_venv and create_venv by its explicit action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it by explaining the effect: after deactivation, python_* and pip_* tools will use the system interpreter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is contextually clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence semantics, default value, and the exact return structure (keys: status, data containing cwd, exists, is_dir). This goes beyond a minimal 'get cwd' statement and provides useful behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized: four short sentences covering purpose, persistence, default, and return format, plus a minimal example. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant fluff. It is well-structured with clear sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, a rich output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the behavioral contract. It explains persistence, startup default, and the return dictionary keys. For a simple getter, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to enhance. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed. The return format is described, which indirectly helps the agent understand what the tool produces.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current session working directory'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_working_directory' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, and the mention of 'session' differentiates it from other directory-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the working directory persists across tool calls and defaults to the user's home directory, giving clear context of when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple read-only getter with a sibling that sets the directory, the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by specifying the return dict with 'status' and 'data' keys and listing included fields. It lacks details on failure modes or status values but is transparent for a read-only info tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides return details and an example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no params and an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the result contains and provides an example call. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and understand the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description provides an example call with no arguments, confirming the tool takes none. No additional parameter semantics needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return comprehensive Python environment information' and lists specific details (version, executable path, platform, prefix, venv), distinguishing it from siblings like python_version or pip_version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear context that this is for a full environment snapshot, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like python_version for only the version or run_python_script for executing code. Implied usage is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states 'read-only' and 'Only SELECT statements are allowed', which are key behavioral traits. It doesn't mention return format or edge cases, but the output schema handles that. A 4 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the alternative tool is mentioned without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a clear scope, all params are documented, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core safety and usage context, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the sql parameter must be a SELECT query, but doesn't add meaningful details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Execute a read-only SELECT query against a SQLite database', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sqlite_execute by explicitly noting 'Use sqlite_execute for writes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Only SELECT statements are allowed' and directs users to sqlite_execute for writes, providing a clear alternative. This makes it obvious when to use this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation using the verb 'Output'. It also details the return structure (status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, duration_ms), giving insight into execution behavior. It does not explicitly mention potential failure conditions or whether it modifies the environment, but the read-only nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a clear opening statement, two use-case notes, a return format section, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and even provides an example. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The example 'pip_freeze()' reinforces that no arguments are required, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Output installed packages in requirements.txt format', specifying both the action and the exact output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_packages or pip_version, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'generating a requirements.txt file' and 'auditing exact package versions'. However, it does not directly contrast with similar tools like list_packages or pip list, which could have been used for the same purposes in different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic parent directory creation, destructive overwrite behavior, and confirmation requirements, covering all key side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with sections for behavior, args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value and the examples clarify usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains the return dict structure, parameter defaults, and edge cases, making it complete without needing to inspect the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no per-parameter descriptions), but the description's Args section explains each parameter's meaning and defaults, fully compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create or overwrite a file with the given content,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like append_file and read_file by explicitly stating overwrite behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Overwrites existing files without warning — use file_exists() first if unsure' and mentions config-dependent confirmation. This tells the agent when to be cautious and when to use an alternative check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/peeyushcodes/windows-developer-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server