dev-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.0.0
- Disambiguation2/5
With 71 tools, several serve nearly identical purposes: add_task vs create_task, next_task vs next_best_action, complete_phase vs next_phase, and commit_changes vs git_commit. This overlap creates confusion and makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are fuzzy for many pairs.
Naming Consistency3/5Most tools use snake_case with a verb-noun pattern (list_tasks, create_task, get_context), but there are many exceptions like 'doctor', 'blocked_tasks', 'impact_analysis', 'project_dashboard', and 'next_best_action'. The mix of imperative verbs and noun phrases makes it hard to predict tool names, though the majority are still readable.
Tool Count1/571 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 3-15 well-scoped range. The massive surface area creates significant cognitive load and makes tool discovery and selection unwieldy for agents.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers an impressively broad project lifecycle: file operations, git workflows, task/phase/milestone management, PRD handling, context management, handoffs, dashboards, and architecture validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_task or delete_milestone), but core workflows are supported with multiple redundant paths.
Average 3.5/5 across 71 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or result characteristics. It only states the action without explaining what the audit does to the system or what output to expect, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately names the action. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description still misses usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. It is adequate for basic identification but insufficient for confident selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents two parameters with no descriptions, and the description adds no information about task_id or path. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify parameter roles or defaults, leaving the agent to guess 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's function—performing outcome audits on user flows, business goals, and objective completion—using specific verbs and a defined scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like verify_work, which similarly assess work completion.
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 versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation but does not explain side effects, required permissions, partial update behavior, or the response format. The mismatch between 'description' in the text and 'title' in the schema adds confusion rather than clarity.
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, compact sentence that is easy to parse. However, its brevity forgoes important details like parameter usage and side effects. It is concise but not complete, so it earns a high score for structure but not perfection.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin to fully contextualize the tool. It fails to mention the 'path' parameter, how to set a description (despite claiming to), or any constraints on allowed values beyond what the schema lists. The tool appears more complex than the one-sentence summary suggests.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds misleading parameter info by mentioning 'description' instead of 'title' and omitting 'path'. This undermines the baseline for high schema coverage, as the description actively confuses rather than supports interpretation.
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 updates a task by ID, focusing on status, priority, or description. It distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_task or create_task by specifying the update operation. However, it mentions 'description' while the schema defines a 'title' parameter, causing minor 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_task or create_task. The description only states the action without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts.
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 lists the types of checks (sanity, test, git diff, architecture) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the workspace or task state, what side effects running tests might have, or what a 'reality verification dossier' contains. This lack of safety and side-effect information is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and the key checks. It is concise and to the point, though the phrase 'reality verification dossier' is somewhat jargon-heavy. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is not overwritten.
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 (multiple check types), lack of annotations, and many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives, does not define the path parameter, and leaves behavioral side effects unspecified. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the other gaps remain critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implicitly ties task_id to the task being verified, but the 'path' parameter is completely unexplained. The description doesn't clarify what path refers to (e.g., project root, source directory) or how it interacts with task_id. Without this, an agent cannot correctly set path.
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's purpose: performing deep sanity, test, git diff, and architecture checks against a task to produce a verification dossier. This is a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('task'), and the combination of check types distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_architecture or verify_requirements. However, it does not explicitly name these sibling tools, so it stops short of full 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. It neither states explicit use cases nor mentions exclusions (e.g., 'for code-only checks use validate_architecture'). With numerous sibling verification tools (verify_outcome, verify_requirements, compare_work_to_prd), an agent would be unsure which one to select for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only scanning behavior but does not disclose details like the scope of files scanned, potential performance impact, or whether any state is modified. The word 'complete' is ambiguous without defining boundaries.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, which prevents a perfect score.
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 the tool has a simple schema and an output schema, the description lacks behavioral expectations, parameter explanation, and usage context. It is barely adequate for an agent to invoke without further clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter 'path' is not explained in the description. An agent cannot infer whether path refers to a directory, file, or glob pattern, or how the default '.' behaves.
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 specific verbs ('Scan files and construct') and specifies the resource ('dependencies and references in the project'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling file operations and analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 validate_architecture or impact_analysis. The description only states what it does, not the recommended 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the output contents but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies or persists any project brain state, or whether it requires specific context. 'Generate' could imply a write operation, but this is not clarified.
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 or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the main content of the output.
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 covers the high-level purpose and output contents, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it omits the meaning of the 'path' parameter and fails to distinguish the tool from the sibling 'project_dashboard', making the description only minimally viable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes one optional 'path' parameter with a default of '.', but the description does not mention 'path' at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it fails to add any meaning to the parameter.
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 generates a 'complete aggregated Project Brain dashboard' and enumerates its contents (status, phase, tasks, changes, recommendations). However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling tool 'project_dashboard', leaving ambiguity about how the two differ.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_dashboard or generate_handoff. The description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Add') but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or what 'project context' means. The word 'active' also conflicts with the schema's status options, adding confusion about the operation'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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the key action. However, the word 'active' is potentially unnecessary and could mislead, so it is not maximally 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 having six parameters and an output schema, the description provides only the most basic context. It does not explain what 'project context' entails, how status interacts with 'active', or the purpose of the optional parameters. The output schema lessens the need for return-value documentation, but overall the description is inadequate for a tool of this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely rephrases the action without elaborating on how the parameters (path, notes, branch, status) relate to the 'project context'.
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 a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('task') with a specific scope ('to the project context'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_task' or 'add_to_context_list', and the modifier 'active' is ambiguous given the schema allows a 'completed' status.
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 'create_task' or 'add_to_context_list'. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'git diff' without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., a git repository), or error behavior. It also doesn't mention that the operation is read-only and non-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 that efficiently states the action. While it lacks explanatory detail, it is not wordy or redundant; it is concise in structure.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and a documented output schema, the description should include more context such as typical usage, the effect of the staged flag, and behavior in non-repo directories. The current description is minimal and leaves significant gaps in understanding when and how to use the 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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the schema already documents staged and repo_path. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond restating the tool's purpose, 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 clearly states that the tool shows changes via git diff, distinguishing it from status/log tools. However, 'staged and unstaged changes' is slightly ambiguous because default git diff only shows unstaged changes; the staged parameter toggles this behavior.
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 git_status, git_log, or other git tools. The description lacks exclusions or alternative tool 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Calculate and recommend' suggests a read-only operation, and listing the factors adds behavioral context, but it doesn't explicitly state that it makes no modifications, what the output contains (though output schema may cover that), or how 'file hints' are used.
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?
A single sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the main action. The word 'Intelligently' is minor filler but doesn't detract much.
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?
For a recommendation tool with complex inputs and sibling tools like 'next_task', the description is under-specified: it doesn't explain the role of 'path', the difference from 'next_task', or what constitutes 'file hints'. With output schema present, some return details may be covered, but the overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions 'path' or how it relates to 'file hints'. This is a significant gap; the agent must guess what path means.
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's function: it calculates and recommends the next best task using phase, priority, dependencies, and file hints. This is a specific verb+resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'next_task'.
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 'based on phase, priority, dependencies, and file hints' implies when to use it (when these factors matter), but there's no explicit comparison to alternatives like 'next_task' or 'list_tasks', nor any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says it 'scans' and 'verifies,' implying read-only analysis without explicitly confirming it doesn't modify the codebase or specifying any required context like a PRD. The description also doesn't mention if it requires pre-existing requirement mappings or how it handles missing keywords, which is crucial for an agent to anticipate 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, efficiently communicating the core purpose. However, it sacrifices specificity for brevity, leaving out key behavioral details that would make the space worthwhile.
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 (which reduces the need to describe return values), the tool lacks annotations, parameter descriptions, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly. The optional parameters and vague keyword mapping leave too much unspecified for reliable selection among many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'feature coverage' and 'codebase,' which could correspond to feature_name and path without explicit mapping. The agent cannot determine what path expects (a directory, file) or what feature_name values are valid, leaving the parameters under-defined.
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 scans a codebase, maps requirement keywords, and verifies implementation status and feature coverage, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like verify_work or extract_requirements, making the purpose clear but not uniquely positioned.
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 checking requirement implementation, but it doesn't state when to use it versus alternatives such as verify_outcome or validate_architecture. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, 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.
- 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. It discloses one behavioral trait—'does not auto-commit changes'—but misses other critical aspects: it doesn't mention that session_summary is required, what side effects 'update progress' has, whether the session termination is reversible, or any permission requirements. The disclosure is partial and insufficient for a destructive-sounding 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and adds a useful parenthetical clarification about auto-commit behavior. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise without being under-specified.
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 (3 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It explains the core action but omits parameter semantics, usage context relative to generate_handoff or commit_changes, and important side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of parameter and behavioral details makes the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the 3 parameters (path, known_issues, session_summary), and the description does not mention any of them. The required session_summary is completely unexplained, and path and known_issues are also left undocumented. The description adds no semantic value for parameters, making it very difficult for an agent to know what values to provide.
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 ('End') and resource ('current session'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_handoff and commit_changes by noting it updates progress, generates a handoff file, and explicitly does not auto-commit changes. This differentiates it from other session/handoff tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when ending a session and creating a handoff, and the parenthetical 'does not auto-commit changes' hints that commit tools should be used separately. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the guidance 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.
- 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 'create or update,' which signals mutation, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, side effects, whether files are created if missing, or any validation of the document type. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 earns its place, and it concisely captures the tool's core purpose and scope.
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 simple parameters, and the schema covers them, plus an output schema exists. However, as a mutation tool without annotations, the description should disclose whether content is overwritten, and mention the project-root context for the path. The description is adequate but leaves these behavioral 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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists the allowed document types, but the schema already does that. No additional meaning is provided for path or content.
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 (create or update) and resource (PRD document) and enumerates the allowed document types (PRD, VISION, SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS), which distinguishes it from generic file tools like write_file and read-only tools like get_prd. The ambiguity between 'create' and 'update' prevents a perfect score, as it doesn't clarify whether it always overwrites or only writes when absent.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_file, edit_file, or get_prd. The description does not state usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. It merely says 'create or update,' which implies usage but offers no context for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a generic action without explaining prerequisites (e.g., existing project), whether existing milestones are overwritten, persistence mechanism, or what the response contains. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.
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 front-loads the action and key attributes. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or irrelevant 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?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It fails to explain the milestone's relationship to a project, storage, behavior on duplicate names, or expected output. Even with an output schema, the behavioral context is missing, making it hard for an agent to anticipate 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely echoes the existence of 'target date' and 'features' without adding new meaning, such as formats, constraints, or interactions between parameters. It neither fully compensates nor adds value 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 clearly identifies the action ('Define a milestone') and key attributes ('target date and associated features'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_milestones' (which reads milestones) and 'create_task' (which handles tasks, not milestones).
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 does not mention that this creates a new milestone, how it relates to other milestone operations, or when it might be preferable. The only clue is the tool name itself.
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?
The phrase 'Create a new task' is essentially the name itself and provides no extra behavioral detail such as side effects, validation, or error behavior, and no annotations are present to fill the 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?
Single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the action and lists key fields.
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 6 parameters and no annotations, yet the description only states the purpose and some fields; it omits context about where tasks are created, what the output contains, or any constraints, making it insufficient for a full understanding.
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 6 input parameters have schema descriptions (coverage 100%), and the description only lists a subset of parameter names without adding any usage nuances, so it adds no semantic value 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 begins with 'Create a new task' which is a specific verb and resource, and enumerates key attributes (phase, priority, dependencies, description), clearly distinguishing from siblings like update_task and list_tasks.
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?
It does not specify when to use this tool versus update_task or other task-management tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the output (Markdown report) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or environmental requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key output elements. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.
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 schema (one optional parameter) and an output schema, and the description covers the report's content. However, it lacks usage context and does not explain the 'path' parameter, so the completeness is moderate but not fully satisfactory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a 'path' parameter with no description, and the description does not explain what 'path' refers to or how it should be used. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('formatted Markdown project readiness report'), including concrete contents ('missing files, scoring audit, and recommended actions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'assess_project_readiness' by emphasizing the report generation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'assess_project_readiness' or 'project_dashboard'. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be invoked.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, persistence, or duplicate handling. This leaves the agent without critical safety and operational context for a mutation-like 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 zero redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 the input schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks usage context, behavioral transparency, and conceptual clarity around what constitutes a 'key file'. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational guidance. It is minimally viable 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates 'purpose' without additional detail. The schema alone adequately defines the parameters.
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 ('register') with a resource ('key file') and scope ('in the project context'). It clearly distinguishes from file I/O tools like write_file and read_file, and from generic context tools like add_to_context_list by the 'key file' specialization, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to register a key file with its purpose, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference related tools. Without exclusions or alternatives, it meets only the 'implied usage' bar.
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 implies a read-only comparison but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, how it locates the PRD, what 'current project context' means, or any limitations. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 optional parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral details and usage context, such as what 'current project context' includes or whether this is a safe read operation, leaving some gaps for a moderately complex comparison 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 has full 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including its default and description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('compare') with clear resources ('current project context and tasks' vs 'PRD requirements') and states the purpose ('check alignment'). It is distinct from sibling tools like verify_requirements or verify_work by focusing on comparing work against the PRD.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it omits critical safety information such as irreversibility, error behavior on non-empty directories, or permission requirements. It only states the operation and a precondition, failing to set expectations for a destructive 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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and key constraint without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently 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 simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, as a destructive operation, it lacks warnings about permanent deletion or behavior with non-empty directories, leaving gaps for an agent to misuse the tool without additional 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 documents the 'path' parameter with 100% coverage. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Delete') and specifies the resource ('a file or an empty directory'), making the tool's purpose obvious. The qualifier 'empty directory' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_recursive, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.
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 scope by limiting deletions to files and empty directories, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'use delete_recursive for non-empty directories') or provide any alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer exclusions from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only health check but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what outputs to expect, or whether any side effects exist.
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 containing no filler or repetition. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
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 (one optional parameter, output schema exists), and the description states its core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and safety details, making it incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
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 for the single 'path' parameter with a clear description and default. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a 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 'Check' and names the exact resources ('diagnostic health and configuration integrity of the Project Brain and MCP server'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_architecture or assess_project_readiness.
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.
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 the tool scans files and detects stack/languages/frameworks, but it does not state whether existing context is overwritten, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects 'Initialize' has on project state. This is a notable gap for a mutation-like 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, the second adds a concrete behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.
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 core purpose and mechanism are covered, but operational context is missing: it does not mention whether existing context is replaced, behavior on missing paths, or idempotency. Since an output schema exists, return formatting is not required, but the description could still be more complete for a tool that initializes state.
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 single parameter, and the schema already describes 'path' as 'Project root directory.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Initialize or auto-detect') and identifies the resource ('project context'), then clarifies behavior via 'Scans project files to detect tech stack, languages, and frameworks.' This distinguishes it from context retrieval/update tools like get_context and update_context, though overlap with bootstrap_project is not addressed.
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: use when you need to initialize or auto-detect project context. However, no explicit alternatives, when-not-to-use, or comparison to sibling tools like bootstrap_project are provided, leaving the decision partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list files and directories,' which is a safe read operation, but it doesn't mention recursion, hidden files, or output format. No contradiction, but minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.
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 100% schema coverage plus an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it omits behavioral details like recursion and hidden files, and with no annotations, some of this context would be expected. It is minimally complete for selection, 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?
The schema already fully describes the single 'path' parameter with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. 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 lists files and directories inside a given directory, using a specific verb (list) and resource (directory contents). It is distinct from sibling tools like read_file or glob_files, even 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 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 glob_files or read_file. It only states the function, leaving usage context entirely implied.
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 bears the burden. It implies a read-only listing, but does not clarify what 'active' means or whether any side effects occur. The behavior is mostly transparent for a simple list operation, but lacks nuance.
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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It earns its place by immediately conveying the core functionality.
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?
With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the ambiguity of 'active', the unmentioned optional filters, and lack of any additional context make it only partially complete for a tool in a task management ecosystem.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and even omits mention of the 'priority' and 'path' parameters, though the schema details them adequately.
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 'List' clearly identifies the operation, and 'all active tasks' defines the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like next_task or complete_task, but the term 'active' is ambiguous (does it exclude completed tasks?), and it omits the priority filter from the description.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., next_task, blocked_tasks). It simply states what it does without specifying contexts 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 must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a non-destructive, read-only analysis through 'suggested' and 'for approval', but it never explicitly states that the tool does not modify files, perform commits, or have other side effects. It also omits information about dependencies (e.g., being inside a git repository) or required permissions.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse and understand the tool's core function.
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 to describe return values, the description is incomplete for proper invocation. It fails to explain the required 'session_summary' parameter, omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools, and provides no behavioral transparency. The tool's complexity is simple, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of side-effect disclosure leave significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its parameters, yet the description adds no meaning to them. It does not explain the role of 'session_summary' nor how 'path' is used, leaving the agent to guess what these parameters represent. The description's mention of 'summary' is ambiguous and could refer to either the parameter or the output, not clarifying the parameter's purpose.
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: analyzing modified workspace files and generating a suggested conventional commit message and summary for approval. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'generate') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commit_changes and git_commit by emphasizing it only produces a suggestion rather than performing a commit.
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 purpose inherently conveys a usage context: when a user has modified files and wants a proposed commit message before actually committing. The phrase 'for approval' gives a clear workflow expectation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, 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.
- 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 implies a read-only operation ('Get information') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, or what constitutes the 'project environment.' This adds only slightly more than the tool name itself.
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, eight-word sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant wording. It is ideally concise for a tool of this 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 tool's simplicity, the output schema, and the optional parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It leaves ambiguity about how the 'current project environment' is determined (e.g., from the path parameter or working directory) and what aspects of the environment are included, which could matter for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, 'path', with a clear description ('Project root directory.') and 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about the current project environment, using a specific verb and resource scope. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like project_dashboard, the focus on 'environment' provides reasonable specificity.
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 tool's name and description—use it when you need information about the current project environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of related tools such as project_dashboard or assess_project_readiness, nor any mention of 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 must carry the transparency burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, file modifications, required setup, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely writes to the filesystem.
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. It delivers the essential purpose efficiently.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and a likely file-writing side effect, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks context about when to use it, what happens when called, and how it fits into the broader project workflow.
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 any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is thorough.
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 ('Log') with a clear resource ('architecture decision record (ADR)') and context ('project context'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle tasks, files, or git 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 description implies usage ('log an ADR') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention situations where this tool is preferred over others, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that deletion is recursive and warns to be careful, but omits critical details such as irreversibility, lack of confirmation prompt, potential to delete large directory trees, or any auth/permission requirements. This is insufficiently transparent 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences and front-loaded key information. Every word earns its place, delivering the essential behavior and a cautionary note without fluff.
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 for a destructive tool. It lacks any mention of side effects, error handling, scope of deletion, or safety mechanisms. The warning 'Use with caution' is vague and does not provide actionable context. More detail is expected given the high-risk nature of recursive deletion.
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 for the single parameter 'path', including its type and description. The description adds slight emphasis that the path can be a file or directory tree, but this is largely redundant. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter well.
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 ('delete') and resource ('file or directory tree'), and the adverb 'recursively' distinguishes it from sibling 'delete_path'. This is a clear and concise purpose statement.
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 a use case (recursive deletion) and warns 'Use with caution', but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'delete_path' or specify when not to use it. The warning provides minimal context, but no clear directive on alternatives or conditions.
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 state whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates a file or returns content, or what exactly is included in 'project context'. The word 'export' suggests non-destructive behavior, but the lack of explicit side-effect or permission information is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no redundant or filler information, earning the highest score for conciseness.
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 tool with one parameter, a full schema, and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The core behavior is clearly stated. However, the meaning of 'project context' is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., does it include all context, decisions, tasks?), but given the simplicity and output schema, the description 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?
The input schema describes the only parameter 'path' with a default and clear description ('Project root directory.'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.
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 'Export' with a clear resource 'project context' and output format 'Markdown document', and it states the intended use case (sharing with other LLMs). This clearly distinguishes its core function, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_handoff or generate_project_brain, which could also produce context-related documents.
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 one wants to share project context with other LLMs/AI tools. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., generate_handoff, get_context) or any exclusions. The use case is stated but not contrasted with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action (list) without describing side effects, path behavior, or output format. It does not confirm read-only status explicitly, though 'list' implies it. Lacks details on how 'path' affects the listing.
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 action and scope. 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?
For a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a note about path scoping or an alternative to get_last_handoff, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical 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?
The input schema's description of 'path' as 'Project root directory' already covers the parameter fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AI session handoffs') with scope ('all') and additional detail ('with dates'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_last_handoff (singular) and generate_handoff (create).
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 versus alternatives. Does not mention that get_last_handoff returns the most recent, or how this relates to generate_handoff. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the dashboard's content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what inputs it requires beyond the default path, or any potential side effects or prerequisites.
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 entire description is one sentence that directly conveys the tool's output and scope with no redundant 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?
The description covers the main purpose and output content, and an output schema is present, so return value details are unnecessary. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with zero annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains a single 'path' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its name and default value.
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 action ('Generate a unified Project Manager Dashboard') and enumerates the exact content components (phase state, todo progress, git status, architecture violations, health score), making its purpose immediately clear and distinct from sibling reporting tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for generating a project overview but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like assess_project_readiness or project_readiness_report. An agent must infer its applicability from the dashboard's listed contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add an item' without disclosing whether items are appended, duplicates are handled, the path must already exist, or whether it returns the updated context. This lack of detail for a mutation operation is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with illustrative examples, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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 a well-documented schema and an output schema present. However, with no annotations, the description does not cover behavioral details such as error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., the list field must exist). It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only points to example list fields, which the dot_path description already covers. No value added beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Add an item') and the resource ('a list field in the context'), with concrete examples like tech_stack.languages and key_files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as add_task (which targets a specific task list) or update_context (which likely modifies a field rather than appending to a list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via examples ('e.g. tech_stack.languages, key_files'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_context or add_key_file, nor does it mention when not to use it. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it marks a phase as completed and may advance, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., existence of a current phase), side effects on tasks, and failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and optional behavior. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description doesn't address edge cases like the last phase or missing current phase, and its mutation side effects are under-specified. Given the schema richness, this is acceptable but not 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described. The description adds that notes summarize accomplishments, which is a minor semantic addition, but it doesn't explain the advance trigger (no explicit parameter). Since schema covers parameter names and defaults, 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 (mark as completed) and the optional advance, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task (for tasks) and next_phase (advance without completing). The verb 'Mark' is specific and the resource 'current phase' 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when you want to complete the current phase, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_phase or next_phase. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'mark as completed' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient 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 immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 full schema coverage and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidance leaves the description feeling incomplete for a mutation operation, though it is minimally viable.
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 'optional notes' which maps to the notes parameter, but this is also stated in the schema. Thus, no significant additional meaning is 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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' with a resource 'task' and clarifies the action as setting it to 'completed'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task' by focusing solely on the completion action.
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 task needs to be marked completed, which is evident from the purpose. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be better in certain scenarios, such as 'blocked_tasks' or 'next_task'.
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 capturing state but does not disclose whether the tool writes a file, updates context, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely persists a handoff artifact.
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 conveys the tool's function without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, making it easy to scan.
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 with three optional string parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, the lack of behavior transparency (storage, side effects) and usage alternatives makes it feel incomplete for a tool designed to persist a handoff.
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 itself does not add parameter-level context, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for path, known_issues, and session_summary.
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: 'Generate a session summary' with a specific verb and resource. It outlines the content ('what was done, what's next, and current project state') and the audience ('handoff to another AI'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_last_handoff and generate_project_brain.
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 at the end of a session by mentioning 'handoff to another AI,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_last_handoff or list_handoffs. It lacks exclusionary guidance or context for 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action without revealing any additional behavior, such as what happens when no phase is active, how the optional 'path' parameter influences results, or whether the operation is read-only. The description essentially mirrors the purpose without adding behavioral nuances.
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 conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant information, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place by clearly identifying the tool's action and target.
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 interface (one optional parameter) and an output schema, which likely describes the return structure, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and omits behavioral edge cases (e.g., no active phase). The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description still feels incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it in all situations.
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 one parameter ('path') with a description 'Project root directory' and a default of '.', providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any further meaning to this parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3. The parameter's purpose is adequately documented by the schema alone.
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: 'Get the current active phase and its status.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current active phase'), and the inclusion of 'status' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_phases (which lists all phases) and set_phase (which changes the phase).
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 stating it retrieves the current active phase, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_phases or next_phase. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'stage file(s)' without mentioning that this modifies the git index, whether it is reversible, or any prerequisites like being inside a git repository. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the underlying command, 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about repository state requirements, behavior on invalid paths, or interaction with other git operations, leaving some 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 JSON description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'files' and 'repo_path'.
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 ('stage') and resource ('file(s) for commit'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling git operations like git_commit, git_diff, and git_log. The parenthetical '(git add)' reinforces the underlying command.
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 that staging is a precursor to commit but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_commit or prepare_commit. 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.
- 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 the basic action. It does not disclose the default max_count, sorting, or whether working tree changes are excluded. This leaves significant behavioral traits unmentioned.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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, has a full schema, and an output schema, so the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and choose it appropriately.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. 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 clearly states the tool shows recent commit history, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by focusing on the log of commits, not the current state or changes.
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 usage context (when you need to see commit history) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or trade-offs. The presence of sibling tools like git_log and git_diff suggests that guidance would be beneficial, but the simple nature of the tool makes the implied usage acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action, missing the fact that the caller must provide the next phase name via 'phase_name', which contradicts the phrase 'in sequence' (implying automatic advancement). It also does not mention side effects like whether tasks in the completed phase are closed, whether the advance is reversible, or how the 'description' parameter affects the next phase. This leaves significant ambiguity for a state-changing 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 is direct and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. No wasted words or filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the primary 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 relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: the need for an explicit next phase name despite 'in sequence', interaction with sibling phase tools (complete_phase, set_phase), and the role of 'path' (though defaulted). With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the behavioral gaps and potential for misuse keep it from being 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%: each parameter (path, phase_name, description) has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the relationship between 'in sequence' and the required 'phase_name' parameter, which would be valuable.
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 specific verbs ('mark', 'advance') and identifies the resource ('phase'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like complete_phase (which only completes) and set_phase (which sets without advancing). The action is unambiguous and directly names the sequence behavior.
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 want to complete the current phase and move to the next in sequence. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like complete_phase or set_phase, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions (e.g., that the current phase must exist). The guidance is clear but not explicit about when to choose this over 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention the destructive nature of the operation, what happens if the index is out of bounds, whether the change is reversible, or any side effects on the project context. The description only states the basic operation without 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and method. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, but the description lacks behavioral details such as error handling, side effects, or what happens to the list after removal. Given the absence of annotations, the description should compensate but only provides minimal information, 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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the phrase 'by index,' which reinforces the index parameter's role but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. 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 action: 'Remove an item from a list in the project context by index.' It uses a specific verb ('remove'), identifies the resource ('item from a list in the project context'), and specifies the method ('by index'). This distinguishes it from sibling add/update 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 description implies usage for removing items from context lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_context or other context modification tools. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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. While 'summarize' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly confirm that no files are modified, nor does it disclose how PRD documents are located or what happens if none are available. This lack of safety-related transparency leaves the agent with assumptions.
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 action and output format. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary 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 one parameter and likely an adequate output schema. However, the description leaves usage guidelines and behavioral traits unstated, making it minimally viable but not contextually rich enough to guide an agent in choosing this over sibling tools or understanding potential 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is described as 'Project root directory'). The description does not add any parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
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 'summarize' with a clear resource 'PRD documents' and output format 'concise bullet list'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prd (which likely retrieves the PRD) and extract_requirements (which might extract structured requirements).
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 is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like extract_requirements or compare_work_to_prd. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the agent must infer the 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. It says 'auto-detect finished work' but does not disclose whether it modifies the Todo plan (e.g., auto-completing tasks) or only reports findings. The name 'sync' implies potential writes, creating ambiguity about side effects, which is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs multiple specifics (scan targets, comparison, purpose) without unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the description lacks crucial context about whether the tool mutates the plan and when to prefer it over sibling tools like verify_work or complete_task. Given its potentially side-effecting nature, this ambiguity makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional path parameter with default '.', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the path parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low 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 ('Scan') and resource ('physical workspace'), enumerates concrete signals (Git diff, new files, current branch, commits), and states the comparison against the Todo plan to auto-detect finished work. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling git_* commands and task management tools like complete_task.
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 a clear usage context: it is for auto-detecting finished work by scanning the workspace and comparing to the Todo plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context alone gives enough guidance for most cases.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'scan' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it can modify files, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. This leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function without redundant language or unnecessary details.
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 architectural validation, the description is under-specified. It does not mention the output format, whether it returns a pass/fail or detailed violations, how guidelines are defined, or any side effects. Although an output schema exists, the description itself provides no additional context to help the agent anticipate behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single 'path' parameter with a default, but the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what the path means or how it relates to 'the codebase', leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.
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 ('Scan the codebase') and the specific scope ('validate imports/technologies against the project's architectural guidelines and forbidden tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like verify_work and verify_requirements, which target different aspects (work outcomes and requirements).
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 a clear use case: checking whether code adheres to architectural standards and forbidden-tool policies. It provides context for when to invoke it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 behavior. It clearly states the mutating action (staging and committing) and hints at a validation gate through the word 'approved'. But it omits edge cases (e.g., no changes, untracked files), whether it pushes, and what happens if the message is not approved.
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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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 output schema covers return values, but the description lacks details on path semantics, failure modes, and workflow integration. Given the large sibling set and no annotations, more context is needed to guide selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'message' as the 'approved commit message', but the 'path' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics unexplained. The statement 'all workspace changes' seems to contradict the existence of a path parameter.
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 specific verbs 'Stage' and 'commit', names the resource ('all workspace changes'), and adds a scope ('with the approved commit message'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like git_add and git_commit, which are lower-level 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 phrase 'Stage all workspace changes' implies a full-commit scenario, and 'approved commit message' suggests a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over git_add/git_commit, so usage guidance is only implied.
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 disclose what happens if old_string appears multiple times, if the file doesn't exist, if the string is not found, or whether the change is reversible/atomic. These are critical behavioral traits for a file-mutating 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, states the exact mechanism, and adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description omits important edge-case behavior (multiple matches, error handling, in-place mutation semantics). For a potentially destructive file-editing tool with no annotations, this is a significant completeness 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?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including case-sensitivity and whitespace-sensitivity for old_string. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely reinforcing the 'exact string' notion. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Edit a file by replacing an exact string with a new string.' It specifies a distinct mechanism (exact string replacement) and differentiates from sibling tools like write_file by focusing on targeted changes rather than full rewrites.
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 usage context: 'Use this for targeted code changes instead of rewriting the whole file.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit when-not-to-use scenario, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly, only implies the rewrite approach.
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 disclosing behavior. It states that it parses markdown and saves to requirements.json, implying a file write. However, it does not clarify whether existing requirements.json will be overwritten, whether the path refers to a file or directory, or what error handling looks like. This is a moderate 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place entirely.
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 parameter and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks clarity on what 'path' refers to and whether multiple files are parsed. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description gives no hint about what path points to (e.g., a single file or directory containing markdown files). This is a significant 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 clearly states the action (parse), the resource (PRD markdown files), and the outcome (extract structured requirements and save to requirements.json). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_prd (which likely retrieves the PRD) and verify_requirements (which checks requirements).
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 (parse PRD files to extract requirements) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferable from the sibling tool names, but there is no direct 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Show', which is accurate, but adds nothing beyond the obvious—no mention of permissions, side effects, or output nuances. It is technically transparent but minimally informative.
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: 'Show the working tree status (git status).' Every word contributes to meaning, and the parenthetical reference to `git status` provides a universally understood anchor. 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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description captures the core function adequately. The output schema supplies return details, and the `git status` reference provides enough context for an agent to understand when to invoke it. Slightly more context about alternatives or error behavior would improve completeness, but it is largely 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 already provides a complete description of `repo_path` with a default value, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'working tree status' and explicitly references the well-known `git status` command, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like `git_diff` and `git_log` by targeting the unique 'working tree status' concept.
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 simply states what it does. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or contrastive references to sibling tools, leaving all usage decisions to the agent.
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 direct and transitive scope of the analysis, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a pre-built dependency graph, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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 information-dense and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.
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 core functionality is clear, and the output schema likely covers the return format. However, the description lacks context about the 'path' parameter, potential prerequisites (e.g., a dependency graph), and how the tool integrates with sibling tools. This is a gap given the moderate complexity of impact analysis.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'file_path' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'path' with a default of '.' is ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the property names. The tool description should compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions but does not.
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 calculates both direct and transitive downstream files affected by a modification. The verb 'calculate' and the resource 'downstream files affected' are specific, and the scope ('direct and transitive') distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_dependency_graph.
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 use case (assess impact before modifying a file) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the siblings. It does not say when to prefer this over build_dependency_graph or validate_architecture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, mention permissions, or describe any side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the action itself.
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 and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly 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?
Given the tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is returned (milestones and their status). However, it does not explicitly link the 'all milestones' to the 'path' scope, leaving a slight ambiguity about whether the list is project-wide or scoped to the provided root directory.
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 'path' parameter already described as 'Project root directory.' The tool description adds no further meaning to this parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema handles the parameter documentation.
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 ('Show') and resource ('milestones') and adds detail ('and their status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_phases. It unambiguously conveys the tool's function without relying on the name alone.
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 (when a user needs to see milestones), but it does not provide explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no guidance on how it differs from list_tasks or list_phases, 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.
- 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 disclosure. It does not mention side effects (none here), error behavior, file type limitations, or permission requirements. The operation is intuitively read-only, but the description doesn't explicitly state that or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant material. It is efficiently worded and immediately understandable.
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 read operation with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error cases, but the output schema covers return values. Overall 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?
The schema already provides full coverage of the 'path' parameter with a description. The tool description merely says 'at the given path', which adds no semantic value beyond what the schema states. 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 ('read') and resource ('contents of a file at the given path'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_file and edit_file. It unambiguously communicates the tool's core function.
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, and no exclusions are provided. Usage is implied by the verb and parameter, but no context is offered for when other file tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 explicitly states the scan and generate actions and lists outputs, but it does not disclose side effects like file writes, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. This is a notable gap but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, efficiently front-loading the core function and its expected outputs. 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 description covers the main purpose and explicitly lists the outputs, and an output schema is present to document return values. However, it omits side effects and prerequisites (e.g., whether it modifies the codebase), so it is mostly complete but lacks some operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter 'path' with default '.', but the description does not mention it or add any meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation, leaving the agent to infer that 'path' refers to the codebase location.
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 specific verbs 'Scan' and 'generate' with a clear resource 'existing legacy codebase' and lists four distinct output artifacts (context, PRDs, milestones, audit tasks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bootstrap_project, which are for new projects.
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 existing legacy codebases but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as bootstrap_project or create_project_workspace. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the usage context only implied.
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. 'Scan the workspace' and 'evaluate' clearly imply a read-only, non-destructive analysis. However, it does not disclose whether any state is modified, what happens if required documents are missing, or whether any prerequisites must be met. This is adequate but lacks explicit safety confirmation.
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 main action ('Scan the workspace') and immediately states the evaluation criteria. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and expected outcome. It could add context about prerequisites or behavior when documents are missing, but the output schema likely covers return value details, so this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining how to specify the workspace path, but it only vaguely refers to 'the workspace' without connecting it to the parameter.
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 specific verbs 'scan' and 'evaluate' with a clear object ('workspace') and a specific outcome ('onboarding readiness score (0-100%) against required Project Brain documents'). It clearly distinguishes its focus from sibling tools like generate_project_brain (which creates documents) and project_readiness_report (which likely generates a report), by emphasizing a scored assessment.
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 assessing onboarding readiness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_readiness_report or bootstrap_project. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer appropriate timing.
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 explains that it loads state and generates a brief, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires auth, or modifies anything. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then elaborates. 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?
The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The main behavior is described. However, the omission of parameter semantics and explicit side-effect disclosure leaves some gaps, but overall it covers the core context well for a session-start tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot know what 'path' refers to or how to use it. The description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory detail, and it fails to do so.
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 'Start' with resource 'development session' and then details what it loads and generates (state, PRD, active tasks, handoff, Session Brief). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as end_session and generate_handoff.
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 'Start a development session' provides clear context for when to use it (at the beginning of a session). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, lacking exclusionary 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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the update mechanism (dot notation) but fails to mention whether the field must already exist, whether it creates missing fields, if it overwrites values, or any side effects. 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by illustrative examples. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. However, the lack of annotations and absence of behavioral edge cases (e.g., missing field handling, overwrite behavior) means it is not fully complete for an AI agent to confidently invoke without further assumptions.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by giving real-world examples of dot_path values ('project.description', 'conventions.code_style'), which clarifies the intended format beyond the schema's generic description. It does not explain 'path' or 'value', but the schema handles those.
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: 'Update a specific field in the project context' using dot notation. It provides concrete examples of valid paths, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_context_list or reset_context that perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating existing context fields via dot notation, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_to_context_list or remove_context_item. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, only an implied scope.
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 disclosure. It does disclose the filtering criteria (dependencies or explicit blocking), but leaves ambiguity about what 'explicitly' means, whether the list is sorted, or if there are any error conditions. However, as a simple read-only listing, this level of detail is reasonable.
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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It is immediately front-loaded with the action and scope, making it 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and one optional parameter fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It slightly lacks contextual differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., list_tasks) but is otherwise adequate for an agent to use it 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 schema covers 100% of the parameters, including a clear description for 'path' ('Project root directory'), so the description does not need to add more. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and adds a clear qualifier ('blocked') with two explicit categories ('by dependencies or explicitly'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tasks or next_task.
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 a use case (identifying blocked tasks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the decision to the agent.
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 (e.g., creating a permanent commit), potential failures (e.g., no staged changes), or any required preconditions beyond staging. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential information without wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded and demonstrates excellent brevity.
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 an output schema and only two optional params, the description is fairly complete. However, it does not clarify how it differs from sibling tools like commit_changes or prepare_commit, leaving a minor gap in selection context. The core intent is clear, making it complete for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, merely repeating the concept of a commit message. The parameter details are fully documented in the schema itself.
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 ('Commit') and resource ('staged changes') with the addition 'with a message', clearly distinguishing it from staging tools like git_add and other commit-related tools. The parenthetical '(git commit)' reinforces the underlying command.
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 there are staged changes to commit, providing context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if changes are unstaged or if a different commit workflow is needed), so it misses the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.
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 states the core operation and gives examples, but does not disclose whether the search is recursive by default, how results are returned, or other behavioral details. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool 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 sentence that directly states the purpose and provides useful examples. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks any usage guidance or behavioral caveats, which is a minor gap for a context-complete description.
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 both parameters ('pattern' and 'base_path') with their meanings, so the description adds little beyond examples already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 the verb 'Find' and resource 'files', and provides concrete glob pattern examples ('**/*.ts', 'src/**/*.py'). This makes the tool's function specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory or search_code.
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 finding files by glob pattern but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_directory or search_code. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is 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 burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral details such as whether a path must exist, scope of 'all phases', or file system dependencies beyond the schema's path parameter.
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?
One sentence with zero waste, directly conveying the function and output scope.
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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention that phases are listed from a project root (hinted by the path parameter), but the schema covers this, so the description is adequate in 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 schema provides full documentation for the single optional 'path' parameter, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema_description_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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('all phases'), and further clarifies the output includes status types (completed, active, pending), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_milestones.
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 to see phases and their statuses, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_current_phase or set_phase, 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'ripgrep-like' which implies behavior (fast, regex, respects gitignore), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how binary files are handled, or what the output format is. This is some context, but not comprehensive.
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 states the purpose without any redundant words or filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 clear purpose, a fully documented schema, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core functionality sufficiently for basic usage. It lacks explicit guidance on edge cases or alternatives, but for the tool's simplicity, the combination of description and schema 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'ripgrep-like' analogy which hints at regex semantics for the pattern parameter, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 'Search' and clearly states the resource ('text pattern across files in the project'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like glob_files (which finds files by name) and list_directory. The 'ripgrep-like' reference further clarifies the nature of the search.
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 context via 'across files in the project' and 'ripgrep-like', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'for file name matching, use glob_files'). No alternative tools are named.
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 the mutation behavior ('Auto-generate') and lists specific generated artifacts, but doesn't clarify whether existing files are overwritten or if the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a file-generating 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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists examples without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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 (one optional param) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and generated artifacts. However, it could mention the 'path' parameter and any side effects (e.g., overwriting) to be fully complete, but it's largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'path' with a default, but the description provides zero coverage (0% schema_description_coverage). Since the description doesn't mention this parameter, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanation, even though the parameter is self-explanatory by name.
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 ('Auto-generate') and resource ('template files and directories'), and lists concrete outputs (PRD, milestones, active tasks, config yaml). It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing onboarding an 'unknown repository', which is not covered by generate_handoff or generate_project_brain.
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 instantly onboard an unknown repository' provides explicit context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as distinguishing from 'adopt_existing_project' or 'create_project_workspace', which would be helpful given the large sibling set.
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 carry the transparency burden. It discloses the action (archiving), destination, and intent (preserving history), which gives basic insight. However, it does not specify whether the archive is copied or moved, how existing archives are handled, or the exact return behavior. This is a middle ground between minimal and 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 a single concise sentence packed with necessary information: action, resource, destination, and timing. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly effective.
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, the description covers the essential context: what is archived, where, and when. Since an output schema exists, return values likely are covered elsewhere. A slight gap is the lack of detail on archive overwriting or naming, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 'path' parameter already described as 'Project root directory.' The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, a 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 archives Project Brain settings and context files to .project_brain_archive/, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reset_project_brain and generate_project_brain by explicitly targeting pre-reset archival.
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 guidance 'before a reset or pivot' provides clear contextual timing for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from reset or generation tools. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).
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. The mkdir -p analogy discloses recursive creation and idempotency (to those familiar with the command), but it omits edge cases such as behavior when the directory already exists or when the path is invalid.
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, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality and behavior, leaving only minor gaps around failure conditions and the exact interpretation of 'one or more'.
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 documents the path parameter at 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that a single path can create one or more directories (via intermediate parents), though the phrasing 'one or more' is slightly ambiguous with a single string parameter.
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 resource (directories), with a useful mkdir -p analogy that conveys recursive creation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating directory structures but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., write_file for files) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 transparency burden. It honestly enumerates the main behaviors (create directory, initialize git, bootstrap context/brain, set milestone), but it does not disclose failure modes, idempotency, whether existing directories are touched, or any system-level side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a setup 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new isolated project workspace directory') and then lists the four key steps in a clear, compact list-like structure. No unnecessary words are present.
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 complexity (multi-step setup), the description gives a solid high-level overview of the process. With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, the main missing piece is an explanation of what 'bootstrap the project context/brain' actually entails, along with explicit differentiation from sibling lifecycle tools like 'bootstrap_project'.
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's parameter descriptions cover 100% of the three parameters (name, path, template) with names and defaults, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. It does not, which matches 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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and names the exact resource ('isolated project workspace directory') plus the full set of initialization steps (git init, context/brain bootstrap, first milestone). This distinguishes it clearly from simpler directory-creation tools like 'create_directory' and from adoption tools like 'adopt_existing_project'.
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 'new isolated project workspace' clearly signals that this tool is for starting a fresh project workspace. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives such as 'bootstrap_project' or 'adopt_existing_project', but the target use case is clearly communicated.
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 states a retrieval action but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., no handoff exists), return behavior, or explicitly confirm no side effects. It adds context about the purpose but not deeper 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no 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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the purpose and usage context, though it could mention what happens when no handoff exists; however, that may be covered by 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 single parameter (path) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. 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?
The description clearly specifies the action (Retrieve) and resource (most recent AI handoff document), and the purpose clause ('so a new AI session has full context') adds useful context. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_handoff or list_handoffs by focusing on the latest document.
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?
It implies when to use it: at the start of a new AI session to get context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives like list_handoffs or mention conditions when this is not appropriate, 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and 'Returns the content,' but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error behavior. This is minimally adequate but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no 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?
The tool is simple with 2 parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. The combination of description and schema adequately covers selection and invocation, though it doesn't mention potential errors or read-only guarantee.
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 includes descriptions for both parameters (path and document) with 100% coverage. The description restates the valid document types from the schema but doesn't add additional semantic meaning, so it earns 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as PRD documents with explicit types (PRD, VISION, SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_prd or summarize_prd by framing this as a read/return-content operation.
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 that this tool reads a specified document type, implying it should be used when raw content is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two main actions (create and switch) and references the underlying command, which implies standard git behavior. However, it does not mention potential failure conditions (e.g., if the branch already exists), repository prerequisites, or output/error handling. Adequate but with meaningful 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, front-loaded sentence: 'Create and switch to a new git branch (git checkout -b).' Every word contributes, and the parenthetical command provides valuable context without 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?
This is a simple tool with 2 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema. The description effectively covers the core operation. It could mention failure when the branch already exists, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema mean the description is 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 covers 100% of parameters (repo_path, branch_name) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the command reference 'git checkout -b'. Since schema coverage is high, 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 action: 'Create and switch to a new git branch' — a specific verb (create+switch) applied to a specific resource (new git branch). It also includes the equivalent command 'git checkout -b', which distinguishes this from sibling tools like git_branch (which likely lists branches) and other git operations.
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 want to create a new branch and switch to it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the inclusion of 'git checkout -b' implies the scope. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation by the verb 'Get' and clarifies selection criteria, but it does not state whether the tool modifies state, how it handles the absence of a task (e.g., returns null or errors), or what 'current phase' entails. More explicit behavioral detail would be valuable.
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 filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and each qualifier (highest-priority, ready to work on, dependencies met, current phase) adds essential meaning.
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 a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core function and selection criteria well. It falls slightly short by not addressing edge cases (e.g., no task available) and not clarifying potential overlap with next_best_action, but overall it is adequate for a task-selection 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 only parameter, path, is already fully described in the schema as 'Project root directory.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage (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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('highest-priority task that is ready to work on'), with explicit selection criteria ('dependencies met, current phase'). This distinguishes it from generic listing tools like list_tasks and gives a clear sense of purpose.
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 'ready to work on' conveys the intended use case: retrieving the next actionable task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as next_best_action, which could serve a similar purpose, so there is no explicit exclusion or alternative 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'clears all data', which transparently reveals the destructive nature of the operation. However, it does not mention whether the reset is irreversible or if there are side effects on related state.
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 front-loaded with the action and outcome. 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 this simple tool, the description is adequate: it identifies the action, the destructive nature, and the path schema is fully documented. The presence of an output schema covers return values. Could be improved by stating irreversibility or scope, but not 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 schema already documents the path parameter with a description ('Project root directory.'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics about how path affects the reset, so it conforms to the baseline of 3 for schema-covered 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 clearly identifies the action (Reset), the target (project context), and the outcome (default values, clears all data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like init_context (initialization) and reset_project_brain (brain vs context).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for resetting context to defaults but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like init_context or reset_project_brain. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by disclosing exactly what is wiped (configuration, tasks, context metadata) and what remains intact (git, source code). This is key safety information for a destructive tool. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any confirmation steps, which would elevate it 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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and targets; the second sentence reassures about exclusions. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 destructive reset tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is destroyed and what is protected. It does not explain return values, but the existence of an output schema mitigates that. It could mention irreversibility, but the scope of behavior is otherwise well covered.
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, which is fully described as 'Project root directory.' The tool description's 'selected project' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'wipe' and clearly identifies the resource ('Project Brain configuration, tasks, and context metadata') within a scope ('inside the selected project'). It also distinguishes itself from destructive tools by explicitly noting git and source code are untouched, making it unique among siblings.
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 resetting a project's brain but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like archive_project_brain or reset_context, which are nearby siblings. The safety clarification about git/source code provides some context but not full decision support.
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 mentions returning output and warns against destructive commands, but does not specify details like exit code handling, stderr behavior, or security implications. The description adds value beyond annotations but lacks comprehensive 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, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. The warning and timeout advice are directly relevant and 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 relatively simple, and the description covers the core behavior, safety precautions, and a key usage parameter. An output schema exists, so return format is already specified. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool 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 full descriptions for all three parameters (command, workdir, timeout_seconds), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description only reiterates the timeout concept without adding syntax or format details, so the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 ('Run') and resource ('shell command') and clearly states the output ('return its output'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file operations and task management by focusing on arbitrary shell command execution.
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 usage guidance by advising to set a reasonable timeout and explicitly warning against destructive commands such as 'rm -rf'. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it provides enough context to use the tool responsibly.
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 add meaningful context about the effect on task scoping ('Only tasks in this phase are considered in scope'), which implies that tasks in other phases become out of scope. However, it does not mention other side effects, such as whether the previous phase is overwritten, if the phase must be predefined, or any permission requirements. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, purposeful sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Set the current active development phase') and follows with one clarifying clause about scope. Every word earns its place, with 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, one required, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It communicates the core action and the key scoping consequence. However, it could have been slightly more complete by noting whether a phase must already exist before setting it, which would help agents avoid errors. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, so this is not a major 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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema adequately explains phase_name, path, and description, the description does not need to compensate. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 ('Set') and resource ('current active development phase'), and immediately distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like get_current_phase, next_phase, and list_phases by adding the scoping implication: 'Only tasks in this phase are considered in scope.' This makes it 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever you need to change the current active development phase and thus redefine what is 'in scope.' However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like next_phase or complete_phase, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the phase must already exist). This is a bit shy of full usage 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 burden. It states creation behavior but does not mention overwrite semantics, parent directory handling, or failure modes. Basic transparency is present, but important edge-case behaviors are unaddressed.
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 with a specific verb and object. Every word earns its place; 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?
As a simple write tool with a complete parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers the core function well. Minor gaps like overwrite behavior are inferable, making it nearly complete for the tool's 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 (path and content) with clear descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter insight, so the baseline 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 verb 'Write content' clearly states the action, and 'to a file' names the resource. Including 'creating it if it doesn't exist' adds scope and distinguishes it from edit_file, which modifies existing 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 phrase 'creating it if it doesn't exist' implies use for new files or full overwrites, giving clear context. It does not explicitly exclude edit_file for targeted edits, but the context makes the boundary evident.
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 must disclose behavior on its own. 'List local branches' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify', the verb 'list' is unambiguous and the parenthetical 'git branch' reinforces the standard 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 one short, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does. The parenthetical reference to 'git branch' adds helpful context without wasted words, achieving ideal conciseness.
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—one optional parameter and an existing output schema—the description covers all necessary context. It fully explains the tool's purpose and relies on the schema for parameter details, making it complete 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 fully describes the single parameter repo_path with its default and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing 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 ('local branches'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like git_create_branch by focusing on listing rather than 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 listing local branches but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, but the context makes the primary use 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 of disclosing behavior. It states that output is formatted text and that filtering is available, which is key behavioral information. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.
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 includes an illustrative example. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential behaviors: full retrieval and optional filtering. It omits explicit alternatives, but the tool is simple enough that the description 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description only repeats the dot_path filtering example without adding new meaning beyond the schema, providing no additional value.
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: retrieving the full project context as formatted text. It also distinguishes itself from sibling context tools by focusing on retrieval (get) rather than modification, and offers a specific filtering option.
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 usage: use this when you need the project context, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like export_context_markdown, but the clear scope makes it easy to infer appropriate situations.
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/pranjal2410719/dev-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server