Praxicraft Assess MCP

Official

by praxicraft-platform

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.5
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are organized by resource (assessments, cases, invites, interviews, webhooks, etc.) with clear action verbs. A few pairs like list_org_team vs list_squad_members and list_cases vs list_platform_cases vs list_interview_org_cases could cause mild confusion, but descriptions disambiguate effectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 59 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, etc.). No camelCase or mixed conventions, making the set highly predictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 59 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range. Even for a broad platform, the size feels excessive and would be better split into focused sub-servers (assessments, interviews, webhooks, etc.).
Completeness4/5
The surface covers core CRUD and lifecycle operations for assessments, invites, interviews, cases, and webhooks, including bulk actions and analytics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_assessment, no update_pipeline), but agents can work around them without major failures.
Average 2.9/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to 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

Behavior1/5
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 only says 'Update', implying mutation, but gives no information about side effects, permissions required, idempotency, errors, or consequences. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a severe gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), which might seem concise, but it is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There is no structure or front-loading of essential information. For a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation, this level of brevity is inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely insufficient. An agent would have no idea what fields can be updated, whether url and events are optional, or what the response might be. The description provides essentially no useful context for calling the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. Yet the description mentions no parameters, fields, or requirements. With 4 parameters (id, url, events, is_active), the description entirely fails to clarify their meanings or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a webhook endpoint' essentially restates the tool name, adding only the word 'endpoint'. It names the verb and resource but doesn't provide any distinguishing detail beyond the name itself. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_webhook or create_webhook beyond the action verb, which is already implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Without any context, an agent cannot determine if update_webhook is the right choice versus other webhook operations or even unrelated 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', which implies modification but reveals nothing about side effects, whether it is a partial or full update, idempotency, or required permissions. The description adds no beyond the tool name's implication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to convey necessary details and thus does not earn the minimal length. The structure is front-loaded but contains no informational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a required UUID parameter and a nested object parameter, the description is severely incomplete. There is no mention of what config should contain, what name is for, or what the update does to the template. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks essential context to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for the three parameters (template_id, name, config). The description must compensate but gives zero parameter information. It does not explain what 'name' or 'config' mean, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an interview template' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'update_interview_template' with spaces, making it a tautology. It does not provide any additional specificity about what updating entails or how it differs from related tools like create_interview_template or delete_interview_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for an existing template, nor does it exclude cases where create or delete would be more appropriate. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Create' without mentioning whether invites are sent (e.g., send_invite parameter), whether it returns a created interview object, or any side effects like scheduling or email notifications. The agent has no idea what happens after calling the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, a single sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information about parameters and behavior, so the sentence does not earn its place by being informative. The structure is minimal and not front-loaded with useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters, does not indicate what a 'live interview room' includes, and offers no guidance on required fields or optional behavior. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the nine parameters. It does not mention titles, candidate emails, scheduling, or interviewer modes. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'live interview room', which clearly indicates the tool creates an interview. It distinguishes from bulk creation (bulk_create_interviews) by implying a single live session, but does not elaborate on what 'live interview room' entails. The purpose is clear enough but could be more specific about the interview type or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_create_interviews, create_invite, or update_interview_template. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a mutation occurs ('Update'), but provides no details on side effects, whether it performs a full replacement or merge, authentication requirements, or what happens to omitted fields. This is a significant gap for a tool with 15 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than helpfully concise. It lacks any structure or breakdown of the tool's behavior, and fails to include essential details that should be front-loaded, such as which parameters are required or what the update semantics are.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), but the description provides almost no context. It does not explain how the update is applied, what the expected response is, how partial vs. full updates work, or any validation rules. An agent given this description would have to guess or rely on external knowledge to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 15 parameters. It does not explain what fields like 'tags', 'rubric', 'expected_output', or 'time_limit_minutes' represent or how they are used. The description provides zero value beyond the raw schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('custom org case'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_case, get_case, and delete_case. However, it does not specify what 'custom' implies or what a case represents, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to modify an existing case, nor does it clarify any prerequisites or constraints, such as whether the case must already exist or whether partial updates are supported.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a candidate limit but omits what happens when the limit is exceeded, whether the operation is synchronous, what response is returned, or any required permissions. For a tool that schedules interviews en masse, this leaves critical invocation behaviors unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, which is good for scanability, but it omits essential details that could be conveyed in a few more sentences. It is concise but not well-structured for the information an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, a bulk scheduling operation, and no annotations or output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, behavioral outcomes, or invocation requirements, making it insufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention title, candidates, interview_type, job_description, or interviewer_mode. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides only names and types but no semantics, leaving meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action (schedule), resource (AI interviews), and a key constraint (max 50 candidates), making it clear this is a bulk variant of create_interview. It distinguishes from single-interview creation but doesn't elaborate on the exact nuance beyond 'bulk'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus single interview creation, bulk invites, or other scheduling tools. It implies bulk usage but provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer based on 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutating operation, but nothing is said about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—one sentence with no wasted words—and is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance; it adds little beyond a restatement of the tool's purpose and does not justify its own existence beyond a minimal gloss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (14 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully insufficient. An agent would have no idea what inputs to provide, how to construct a valid request, or what to expect in return. The description only offers the most superficial overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 14 parameters (including the 4 required ones) are explained in the description. The parameter names and types alone do not convey semantics like expected formats, constraints, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('custom org case'), which distinguishes it from creating an assessment or other entities. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'case' or how it differs from platform cases, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_assessment or when a case should be created. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create an interview template,' which implies a mutation but reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or response format. For a creation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and unambiguous, which is concise. However, it is under-specified—it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. It is appropriately sized only if the bare minimum counts, but it lacks structure and front-loaded essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested config object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining usage and expected behavior. It provides none of that. An agent would have to guess what 'config' accepts and what happens after creation. This is completely inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds no information about 'name' or 'config'. The 'config' is an open-ended nested object with additionalProperties, yet the description doesn't hint at its purpose or structure. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('interview template'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_interview_template or delete_interview_template beyond the verb itself, which is inherent. It's clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_interview_template or list_interview_templates. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided. The tool's purpose is implied by the create verb, but the description gives no explicit direction on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds nothing beyond the name. It doesn't mention that deletion is irreversible, may stop deliveries, or require specific permissions. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely effective. It repeats the tool's name without adding new information, so it fails to earn its place and would be better replaced with a more informative sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool, the description lacks essential context: no mention of return value, error behavior, or idempotency. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is too sparse for an agent to call confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that a webhook identifier is needed. This is a significant gap for a one-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'webhook endpoint', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling webhook tools (create, get, update, list, test) by being the only deletion operation in that group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_webhook (which might deactivate instead of delete). The description simply restates the action without context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It conveys that this is a mutation (enrolling), but fails to mention side effects such as creation of candidate records, idempotency, whether it overrides existing enrollments, implications of the 'send_email' parameter, or required permissions. The one-line description is not misleading but leaves most behavioral details undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimal, which is more an issue of completeness than conciseness. It is structured logically (verb + object), but the brevity does not serve the agent's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits explanation of key parameters, expected behavior, and any side effects or requirements. An agent would have to guess the meaning of 'slug' and 'send_email', and would not know what to expect as a result. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema itself contains no property descriptions. The description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters. It doesn't explain that 'slug' likely refers to the pipeline slug, that 'email' identifies the candidate, or what 'send_email' controls. Since the schema is silent, the description must carry the load and it completely fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Enroll') and resource ('candidate' in a 'pipeline'), which clearly conveys the core action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pipelines or get_pipeline_enrollment by implying a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling. The purpose is clear and not tautological, but lacks specificity about which pipeline or how candidates are identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't indicate that the pipeline must exist or that a candidate might already be enrolled. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a non-trivial mutation.
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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior are made. It adds no context beyond the purpose, which is insufficient for a tool that has no annotations to rely on.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (a single sentence), which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structure to convey supplementary details or context. While brevity is a virtue here, the content is too sparse to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what kind of detail is returned (e.g., room capacity, link, status) or what the response structure might be. The absence of an output schema places a burden on the description to at least hint at the return value, which it fails to do. It also lacks any mention of edge cases or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not explicitly mention room_id or its meaning, though the purpose 'interview room detail' and the parameter name make it semi-obvious that room_id identifies the room. However, it doesn't clarify whether room_id refers to the interview ID or a separate room entity, and it offers no format or additional guidance. The description adds minimal value beyond the implicit schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('interview room detail'), which conveys the basic action. However, 'room detail' is somewhat ambiguous and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_interview_analysis or get_interview_replay, which could also relate to interview details. A more precise term like 'interview room information' or a note about what 'detail' encompasses would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for retrieving a specific room's details rather than listing interviews or accessing analysis. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate among the many 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether results are cached, or if there are rate limits. The word 'aggregate' implies computation, but the agent cannot anticipate side effects or response characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the purpose but provides no structural detail, such as output description or parameter context. Every word could be used more effectively to add information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one ambiguous parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not define the return value shape or the impact of team_slug, leaving the agent to guess. More detail is needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'team_slug' has no description in the schema and 0% coverage. The description does not explain what team_slug does, whether it is optional or required, or how it affects the analytics. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it entirely fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get aggregate organisation analytics' clearly states the verb (Get) and a specific resource (aggregate organisation analytics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_org or list_org_team, which focus on raw data rather than aggregated metrics. However, 'analytics' is broad and could be more specific about what metrics are covered.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions that would favor this tool, such as needing rollup statistics or when to prefer get_org/list_org_team. The description leaves the selection entirely to the agent's inference, which is risky given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get a hiring pipeline by slug' with no mention of read-only nature, return format, errors, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a get operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short for a simple get operation, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not mention what the response contains, any prerequisite (e.g., permissions), or error conditions. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or output from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The single parameter 'slug' is only echoed as 'by slug' without any additional meaning, format, or example. The description adds no value beyond what the parameter name already implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (hiring pipeline) and the identifier (slug). It is specific enough to distinguish from list_pipelines, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipelines or get_pipeline_enrollment. It only states the action without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, without revealing side effects, required permissions (e.g., whether the interviewer/owner must have specific roles), reversibility, or the behavior of the expiration parameter (expires_days). This is insufficient for a tool that likely creates a persistent or time-limited access artifact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single front-loaded sentence that establishes the purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations; it is appropriately concise but not appropriately sized to convey necessary usage information. It could benefit from a second sentence on parameters or behavior without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide enough context for an agent to successfully call the tool. It fails to clarify the meaning of expires_days, what the shareable report contains, or any access control considerations. An agent would be uncertain about required parameters' semantics and potential side effects, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions neither room_id nor expires_days, nor their semantic meaning (e.g., which interview, how expiration works). The schema gives type and format but no business logic, leaving the agent to guess the value of expires_days (e.g., number of days until link expiry). This is a critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('shareable report link') for a 'completed interview', making the tool's intent clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle interviews, assessments, invites, etc., as there is no other sharing-focused tool. However, it lacks detail on what the report link contains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal context that the interview must be 'completed', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or restrictions. There is no mention of expiration or permission requirements, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing consequences: does it create a delivery record, what happens on failure, does it confirm endpoint reachability? The absence of any behavioral context leaves the agent guessing about side effects and expected outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, its brevity sacrifices essential details such as input explanation and expected behavior. It is not wordy, but it does not provide enough information to earn its place as the sole source of guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain inputs, outputs, and expected behavior. It only states the action, providing no information on what the agent should expect after calling the tool—such as a success indicator, errors, or side effects. This makes the tool difficult to use correctly without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, webhook_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention the input at all, relying solely on the parameter name. While 'webhook_id' is self-explanatory, the lack of any elaboration on its required format or purpose is a gap, especially given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Send a test ping' and the resource 'webhook endpoint'. It is distinct from sibling webhook tools like get_webhook or list_webhook_deliveries, as it implies a testing operation. However, it does not specify what a test ping accomplishes or what success looks like, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the webhook needing to exist or be configured, nor does it suggest this as a diagnostic step after webhook creation. There is no clarity on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from other webhook operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed result,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not reveal any constraints, error handling, side effects, or what 'detailed' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient and front-loaded, communicating the core action and resource without fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for an agent to call correctly. It does not explain what a 'detailed result' includes, how it differs from get_invite, or any error conditions. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves many critical details undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but the only parameter (token) is a UUID that is self-explanatory by name and format. The description repeats 'invitation token,' adding minimal semantic value. Given the simplicity of the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though no extra detail is offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed result for an invitation token'), which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, 'detailed result' is vague and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_invite, which also deal with invitations. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer get_invite_result over get_invite, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent receives no context to make an informed choice.
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 revealing side effects (e.g., whether participants are notified, whether the old time is freed), required permissions, idempotency, or constraints like rescheduling within a valid window. The term 'room' adds ambiguity about what is altered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It front-loads the action but omits essential context. The brevity fails to earn its place because it does not clarify the tool's role among a large sibling set or address key usage questions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what a successful reschedule returns, what happens to the old interview, whether there are state restrictions, or how to handle errors. For an agent to correctly invoke it, more information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only scheduled_at has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; it never mentions room_id or scheduled_at. Since half the parameters lack schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents to guess what 'room_id' represents (likely an interview identifier) and how the datetime is formatted beyond ISO 8601.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Reschedule') and resource ('interview room'), making the core purpose clear. However, 'room' is an unusual term that could mean an interview slot or a physical room, and it is not explicitly tied to the sibling set. It differentiates from cancel/create but requires inference to understand it changes the existing interview's scheduled time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_interview or create_interview. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., must be an existing interview, cannot be past) or provide exclusion criteria. The description implies usage only through the verb 'reschedule'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only says 'attach', which implies mutation, but does not state idempotency, behavior on duplicate associations, permissions required, or what happens on success or failure. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the input patterns. It is concise and free of fluff, but the extreme brevity comes at the cost of essential details, so it does not reach the top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a nested object with enums, four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not even mention the required 'slug' parameter, nor does it explain the structure of the cases array or what a successful attach returns. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the two input patterns (cases array or case_id + source) but does not explain any parameter semantics such as slug, order, weight, time_limit_minutes, or the meaning of the source enum. The compensation is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('attach') and resource ('cases to an assessment'), and hints at two input modes (cases array or case_id + source). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_assessment_case and replace_assessment_cases by implying an additive action, but it does not explicitly say whether it replaces or appends, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_assessment_cases or remove_assessment_case. The description only mentions input patterns, not conditions or exclusions. An agent is left to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'cancel' without explaining side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to associated data. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the stated purpose. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too sparse. It provides the essential action but lacks details on return value, side effects, or any preconditions. An agent would not know what to expect after calling it or whether additional steps are required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does 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 parameter meaning. It does not mention 'room_id' at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory and the schema specifies it as a UUID, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, and it doesn't clarify what the 'room' refers to in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('interview room'), clearly indicating the action taken. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cancel_invite' (different resource) and 'reschedule_interview' (different action). However, 'interview room' could be ambiguous without further context, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions (e.g., when to reschedule instead of cancel). The description simply states the action without contextual routing.
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. 'Register' implies creation, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., active webhook immediately), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral context beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence, but it is under-specifying rather than efficiently structured. It does not front-load critical information about what constitutes a valid webhook, and while brief, it lacks the substance needed to be considered well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the event names allowed, how the webhook is validated, or what response to expect. This is inadequate for a creation tool with minimal supporting context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines parameter names and types but includes no descriptions for them. The tool description adds no meaning to 'url', 'events', or 'description' beyond their schema definitions. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of what each parameter represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register a webhook endpoint' clearly states the verb (register) and resource (webhook endpoint), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinct from siblings like update_webhook or delete_webhook, though not explicitly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description does not mention exclusions or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not state that it is non-mutating, does not mention any authentication or rate limits, and offers no insight into what 'analysis' entails or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and object, making it easy to parse. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though it remains appropriately concise for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the analysis includes, when it is available, or any conditions like the interview being completed. The existence of overlapping siblings (get_interview_analytics) also demands more contextual clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does 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 parameter semantics. It mentions 'for a room' but does not explain what a room is, how it relates to room_id, or what the returned analysis contains. The parameter is left underspecified beyond its type and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('post-interview analysis') and scopes it to a room. It is unambiguous on what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_interview or get_interview_analytics, leaving potential ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., interview must be completed) or why one would choose this over get_interview_analytics or get_interview_replay.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('list') without disclosing any behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, return format, or required permissions. For a listing operation, it is implicitly read-only, but no explicit disclosure exists, and the description adds no insight beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core action, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-specifies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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, no output schema), the description should at least explain the parameter and provide usage context. It does neither, and with many sibling tools that overlap in purpose (e.g., list_cases, list_platform_cases), the lack of differentiation and parameter explanation leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single optional parameter 'q' as a string with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain 'q' at all, leaving its purpose and format entirely ambiguous. This is a critical omission because the description must compensate for the schema's silence, and it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'org coding cases available for interviews', specifying the resource (org coding cases) and purpose (for interviews). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_platform_cases and list_cases by scope, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives. The verb 'list' is clear and the resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cases or list_platform_cases. No context is given about the intended use case (e.g., fetching cases for interview setup) or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and provides no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') implying a read operation, but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. With no annotations and no extra behavioral context, this is a minimal description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is extremely terse. While concise, it lacks substantive content; for a tool with no annotations, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient to convey the action. However, it does not mention what the response will contain, potential failure modes, or any prerequisites, which given no output schema leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as a required UUID string. The description merely says 'by id' which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not, offering no clarification on the parameter's purpose or expected values beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('custom org case') with a clear identifier ('by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like list_cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools for different resources, though the resource name 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource type.
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 mentions 'browser required', which is a useful operational note, but it doesn't indicate whether the action is read-only, whether it creates a connection or just retrieves a URL, or whether it requires specific authentication/scopes. It also doesn't describe the nature of the returned URL (e.g., ephemeral, scoped).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It does not waste words, and the parenthetical about browser requirement is relevant. However, it is not structured or broken out, which could make it harder to parse quickly, though for a one-liner it's effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should still cover operational context. It tells the purpose and browser requirement, but omits any details about side effects (if any), authentication needs, whether the connection is established immediately, or how to interpret the returned URL. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'provider' parameter. While the phrase 'ATS provider' gives some semantic hint, the description does not list possible values, constraints, or examples. With only one parameter, the description fails to fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get dashboard URL to connect an ATS provider', which identifies a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_integrations (listing) and test_integration (testing), though it doesn't name them explicitly. The inclusion of '(browser required)' adds context about the delivery mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention differences from list_integrations or test_integration, nor does it state prerequisites or edge cases. An agent has to infer the context from the name and description 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 provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not state whether any side effects occur, what authentication or permissions are required, or what the response format will be. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no fluff or repetition. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits key contextual details, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and low annotation coverage, the description should provide more context. It does not mention possible statuses, metadata fields, error scenarios, or how this tool relates to get_invite_result or other invite tools. An agent would still be uncertain about the expected output and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for the token parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the token is used to fetch the invitation status, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare 'token' field, but it does not explain the token's format, source, or how to obtain it. Given the low coverage, this is only a minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'invitation status and metadata' with the parameter 'token' as the lookup key. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_invite_result by focusing on status and metadata rather than results, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_invites or other invite-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_invites, get_invite_result, or cancel_invite. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not state whether the operation is a partial update (only provided fields), whether existing unmentioned fields are preserved, whether validation occurs, or what the response looks like. No safety, permission, or side-effect information is shared.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff and no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource. However, for a tool with 19 parameters, this brevity borders on underwhelming, though it remains efficient and easy to parse. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for potentially being too sparse given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (19), nested objects, and total absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs (slug), behavior on partial updates, how nested settings interact, or what constitutes a successful call. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply and guess at semantics, making the description inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions broad categories like 'proctoring' and 'pool mode' but does not map them to specific parameters (e.g., enforce_fullscreen, screen_recording_enabled for proctoring; pool_settings, shuffle_strategy for pool mode). Parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but the description adds little to clarify ambiguous ones like tag_quotas or violation_review_threshold. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Update' with resource 'assessment' and enumerates the updatable aspects (metadata, status, proctoring, pool mode, squad), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from list/get/create tools but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_interview_template. The mention of specific categories adds specificity without being a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_assessment, duplicate_assessment, or other update tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Replace' implies overwriting the existing lineup, but it does not explicitly state that existing cases not in the new list will be removed, nor does it disclose any other behavioral traits such as atomicity, permission requirements, or validation failures. The description is too sparse for a destructive mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it sacrifices important detail. Conciseness itself is well executed, but the lack of substance limits the score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has nested input (cases array) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about the replacement semantics (e.g., whether the operation is atomic, what happens to omitted cases) and omits any detail about return values or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides zero explanation of the parameters. It does not clarify that 'slug' identifies the assessment or that 'cases' is an array of case objects with specific fields. The agent receives no semantic help beyond raw property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Replace the full case lineup on an assessment' clearly states the verb (replace), the resource (case lineup on an assessment), and implies a wholesale operation that distinguishes it from siblings like attach_assessment_cases and remove_assessment_case. The specificity is high and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_assessment_cases (which likely adds/updates cases individually) or remove_assessment_case. The description does not state when a full replacement is appropriate or mention any prerequisites or side effects, 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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'create', which is already evident from the tool name. It does not mention side effects like email sending (implied by send_email parameter), permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on creation. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words are present. While it lacks detail, the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is incompleteness, not verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain parameter relationships, required fields, defaults, or expected behavior. This is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters such as slug, email, name, role, send_email, or expires_days. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, leaving agents to guess meanings of all six parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'create', the resource 'assessment invitation', and the scope 'single', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling bulk_invite. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'single' implies this is for one invitation at a time, indirectly suggesting bulk_invite for multiple. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, leaving 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.
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, but does not state what happens if no recording exists, whether it returns null or errors, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'Get', leaving the agent to guess the behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Given the tool's simplicity, this level of conciseness is acceptable, though slightly underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return structure and edge cases. It only says 'recording and transcript metadata' without specifying what fields are included, how to handle missing recordings, or how it differs from get_interview. An agent calling this tool would lack critical context for interpreting the result, especially with no output schema to fall back on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, room_id, is a UUID and is clearly named, so the schema already documents its format and requirement. The description adds no extra meaning beyond pointing at 'interview' context, but since the parameter is self-explanatory, the schema provides enough coverage. With 0% schema_description_coverage but a trivial parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'interview recording and transcript metadata', making the tool's purpose specific. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interview (which likely returns broader interview details) and get_interview_analysis (which focuses on analysis). However, it does not fully specify what the metadata includes, so it is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_interview, get_interview_analysis, or list_interviews. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a recording must already exist) or typical use cases. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for choosing among similar siblings.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no further detail is provided—no mention of possible errors, permission requirements, or what constitutes 'status'. It is minimally adequate but thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description omits critical context: what the ID represents, what the response contains (just status or full enrollment details), and how it differs from get_pipeline. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description for the 'id' property, and the description only says 'by id' without clarifying whether this refers to the enrollment ID, pipeline ID, or something else. The parameter's meaning is ambiguous, leaving the agent uncertain about what value to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pipeline enrollment status') with the parameter ('by id'). It is clear and distinct from siblings like get_pipeline, which retrieves a pipeline itself, and enroll_candidate, which mutates enrollment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline or enroll_candidate. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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 'Get a hiring squad by id' and gives no information about errors, response format, authentication requirements, or side effects. The minimal length offers no insight into operational behavior beyond the basic retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the licensing constraint, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a licensing note. However, it omits practical details such as error handling, expected return values, or any preconditions beyond licensing. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to anticipate edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does 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 parameter documentation. The phrase 'by id' hints that the team_id parameter is the squad identifier, but it does not explicitly confirm which parameter or add any details beyond the schema. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'hiring squad by id', making the core purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from list_squads by focusing on a single entity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it lacks the full differentiation seen in top-tier descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a licensing prerequisite ('Growth plan and above') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_squads or other alternatives. It does not state exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer that this is for fetching a specific squad by ID.
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 states the operation is 'safe' (non-destructive) and cursor-paginated, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the output structure, filtering behavior beyond the fact it is curated, or any rate limits or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Browse curated platform cases') and appends a useful parenthetical on safety and pagination. There is no wasted verbiage and it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the filter parameters (type, track, search, difficulty) nor what the response looks like beyond pagination. An agent would have to guess at several parameter meanings, making this incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only cursor and page_size have descriptions), and the tool description adds little for the remaining parameters. It mentions 'curated' which logically implies filters, but it does not explain the semantics of type, track, search, or difficulty. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('curated platform cases'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cases and list_assessment_cases by implying a curated subset. It is clear about the action and scoping, though it does not explicitly name the distinction from those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_cases, list_assessment_cases, or any exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer the differences. The word 'curated' hints at a context, but there is no explicit when/why.
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. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about side effects, permissions, return format, or whether data is aggregated. It offers minimal behavioral transparency beyond the implied non-mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is not bloated or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what KPIs are included, the time range, whether it is real-time or historical, or how the result is structured. Given many sibling analytics tools, this leaves significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific resource ('organisation interview KPIs') and a verb ('get'). It is distinct from siblings like get_interview which focuses on a single interview, though it could be confused with get_org_stats or get_interview_analysis if the agent doesn't read carefully. No explicit differentiation is given.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_interview_analysis or get_org_stats. The description gives no context about the intended scenario or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is for org-level KPIs based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'cursor-paginated,' which is a meaningful behavioral detail about pagination style. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., list of case objects), error handling, rate limits, or whether results are ordered or filtered. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a list, and the minimal disclosure is not enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase, front-loading the core action and resource. There is zero extraneous text, and it is immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate in a minimal sense — it tells the agent the resource and pagination method. However, it fails to note what a 'case' is or how this tool differs from the several other case-listing siblings (list_platform_cases, list_assessment_cases, list_interview_org_cases). Without that context, an agent could pick the wrong tool. It is not severely incomplete, but it leaves notable ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — both cursor and page_size are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the word 'cursor-paginated,' which reinforces the role of the cursor parameter but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('custom org cases'), which is clear enough. It also mentions 'cursor-paginated,' giving a hint about behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_platform_cases or list_assessment_cases, but 'custom org' narrows the scope reasonably. Not a full 5 because it lacks an explicit note on what distinguishes it from other case-listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_platform_cases or list_assessment_cases. The description provides no context for choosing this tool in a given situation. It relies on the agent to infer from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'cursor-paginated,' which is a significant behavioral detail about iterating through results. However, it does not specify authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects (though listing is generally read-only). The pagination note adds some value but leaves other behavioral aspects unmentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (five words), which is positive for readability, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the core function but does not structure any additional helpful context. While conciseness is appropriate for a simple list tool, the brevity here is at the expense of usability, so it earns a mid-range score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters (two undocumented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of q or status, does not describe the return structure (though pagination is hinted), and fails to provide any usage context that would help an agent call it correctly. The description is too thin to be considered complete for a tool with these characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for cursor and page_size (50% coverage), but the tool description itself adds no explanation of the parameters q and status. The description does not clarify what 'q' filters on (e.g., candidate name, interview title) or what 'status' values are acceptable, leaving 50% of parameters under-documented. The description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema's minimal details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List') on a concrete resource ('live interview rooms') and further distinguishes itself by noting cursor-based pagination. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_assessments or list_invites by its explicit subject matter (interviews) and the 'live' qualifier, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_interview, list_assessments, or other list endpoints). It omits any context about prerequisites, use cases, or what distinguishes 'live' interviews from other states, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a removal, implying a destructive action, but does not mention permanence, effects on related data, error behavior (e.g., if the case is not attached), or any side effects. An agent cannot anticipate the operational consequences from this description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), so a brief description might suffice. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at least confirm the roles of 'slug' and 'assessment_case_id'. It does not fully clarify the input semantics, leaving room for misinvocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only says 'a single attached case' without clarifying that 'slug' is the assessment identifier and 'assessment_case_id' is the case identifier. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value and leaves ambiguity about which parameter refers to what.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('remove') and a specific resource ('a single attached case from an assessment'), which distinguishes it from attach and replace siblings. It could be more explicit about the exact relationship, but it is clear enough for an agent to recognize the primary action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (removing one attached case) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like replace_assessment_cases or attach_assessment_cases. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is or isn't appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the duplicate-skipping behavior, which is useful, but does not cover side effects (e.g., email sending via send_email), idempotency, permission requirements, or failure behavior. The disclosed behavior is positive but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it is possibly too brief to cover the necessary semantic load for the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter meanings, return value, pagination, or error scenarios. Agents would need to inspect the schema and infer heavily.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. The schema defines 'slug', 'candidates', 'send_email', and 'expires_days' with only type info, no explanations. The description offers zero value in understanding what these parameters control, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Bulk create assessment invitations' and adds a distinguishing behavior 'skips duplicates', which separates it from the singular create_invite sibling. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies bulk usage via the name and phrase, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., create_invite for single). No when-not-to-use conditions or edge cases are mentioned. The guidance is implicit at best.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'cancel' implying mutation, but offers no details on side effects, irreversibility, restrictions (only pending invitations), or what happens to related data. Minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key parameter, achieving maximal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks contextual guidance such as when to use it, side effects, or related flows. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could lead to misuse in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description only says 'by token', which doesn't clarify the token's role beyond its name. It does not explain that the token uniquely identifies the invitation to cancel, nor any format constraints beyond the UUID type already indicated in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Cancel), resource (pending invitation), and method (by token). It clearly distinguishes from sibling invite tools like remind_invite, get_invite, and list_invites without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., invitation must be in pending state) or conditions like checking status via get_invite first. The use case 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.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'soft-delete', which conveys that the operation is non-destructive but does not explain consequences (e.g., visibility, reversibility, or response format). This is a minimal but meaningful behavioral signal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the key behavior (soft-delete) and the resource type. Minor gaps like the exact effect of a soft-delete are not critical for a basic call, so the description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'id' with format uuid, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory, reducing the gap but still leaving the description lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Soft-delete' and the resource 'custom org case' clearly, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_assessment_case which targets assessment cases. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It neither states that the operation is read-only nor describes what the 'detail' includes, error behavior, or any side effects. For a getter, the absence of such information is a noticeable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. The action and primary selector are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal to the point of leaving significant gaps. It does not indicate what fields are returned, how to handle non-existent slugs, or any related context. While simple, it lacks enough detail for an agent to fully anticipate the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the parameter ('by slug'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema (a bare 'string'). However, it does not elaborate on slug format, uniqueness, or expected values. Given schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but stops short of full semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('assessment detail') identified by a slug. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_assessments, update_assessment, and create_assessment, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies a single-asset fetch, it does not mention when to prefer it over list_assessments or any exclusion conditions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is 'cursor-paginated', which hints at a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only and has no side effects. It also does not mention any required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond an implied list of tasks. The minimal text leaves important expectations undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary function and a key behavior (pagination) without verbose fluff. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it could be slightly expanded to clarify terminology. The structure is appropriate for a low-complexity list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention that the assessment slug is required (though the schema implies it), nor does it describe the return format, ordering, or whether any filtering is possible beyond pagination. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not outstanding; an agent would need to rely on the schema for crucial details like the required slug.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents cursor and page_size with descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions pagination generically. The required 'slug' parameter lacks a schema description, and the tool description does not clarify its purpose beyond the name, though it is reasonably inferable as the assessment identifier. This baseline of 3 reflects that the schema does most of the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pairing: 'List tasks attached to an assessment'. The tool name 'list_assessment_cases' and the description align on the core action, though it uses 'tasks' instead of 'cases', which could cause minor ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like attach_assessment_cases (adds) and list_assessments (lists assessments) by focusing on attachment to a specific assessment. The 'cursor-paginated' note adds useful detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for reading cases associated with an assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_assessments or attach_assessment_cases. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the assessment slug must exist) or common scenarios. The context from sibling tool names gives some clues, but the description itself provides no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning return format, ordering, pagination, or read-only nature. This is a significant gap for an agent expecting to know what a call will yield.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should describe what the tool returns (e.g., array of template objects) and any relevant constraints. It provides none of this, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure and whether the tool fits its needs. This is incomplete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description satisfies this trivially since there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List saved interview templates' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_interviews and list_assessments, and from template mutations. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify what 'saved' implies (e.g., excludes shared templates), so it's not perfectly crisp.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_interview_template or update_interview_template. The use case is implied (retrieving templates for reference), but no explicit context or exclusion criteria is given. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but minimal.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful outcome. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a side-effecting email send.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately brief for such a simple tool, though it could afford to add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: what happens after sending, what errors may occur, and how an agent can verify the reminder was sent. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the token parameter, but it does not define what the token represents (e.g., the invitation token) or its role in the action. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send'), the resource ('reminder email'), and the condition ('for a pending invitation'). It distinguishes naturally from sibling tools like create_invite and cancel_invite by its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pending invitations but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as getting the invite status or canceling. It offers no clear exclusion criteria or mention of alternative 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'Delete' without elaborating on consequences such as permanent removal, cascading effects on associated data, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a core 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. The essential action is stated clearly and completely for a tool of this simplicity. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, once again satisfying conciseness requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any information about side effects, required permissions, or whether the deletion is irreversible, which would be valuable for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Given the lack of annotations, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter template_id is a UUID field with 0% schema description coverage. The description makes no mention of it, but the parameter name and type are self-explanatory. Since it is the only parameter and its purpose is obvious, the lack of explicit description is acceptable, though it does not add any value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'Delete' and a specific resource 'interview template', which is exactly the tool's purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_interview_template and list_interview_templates, as deletion is a unique action among them. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for selection. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or that it should not be used in certain scenarios. The description is purely a statement of action, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent's 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are 'cursor-paginated' and that the feature requires 'Growth+', which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects (it is clearly a read operation but that is not stated), error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, the disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded ('List members'), and the qualifying factors (pagination and plan requirement) are tucked into parentheses. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (list members, paginated), but the description is sparse. It does not explain what a squad is, what the return structure looks like (no output schema exists), or any prerequisites beyond 'Growth+', which is mentioned but not explained. There is no guidance on handling invalid team_id or expected page behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (cursor and page_size have descriptions; team_id does not). The description adds no information about any of the parameters, including team_id which is required. It does not clarify that team_id identifies the hiring squad or provide any syntax or expected format beyond what the schema already states. The description fails to compensate for the missing team_id description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'members of a hiring squad', which is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_squads (lists squads) and get_squad (gets a single squad). The qualifiers 'cursor-paginated' and 'Growth+' add distinct context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of get_squad for retrieving a single squad or list_squads for listing all squads, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two key behaviors: cursor-based pagination and a plan-tier access requirement, both useful for an agent. However, it omits other behaviors such as result ordering, empty-response handling, or any rate-limit note; the disclosure is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tightly packed sentence with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the two behavioral constraints (plan tier, pagination) are efficiently grouped in parentheses. Every token earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional, fully-documented parameters, the description covers the core essentials: the resource, plan gating, and pagination method. However, with no output schema, the agent is left without any hint of the return shape, ordering, or squad fields, which is a notable gap for a tool of this kind.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both cursor and page_size are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'cursor-paginated' phrase, which reinforces cursor's purpose but adds no new syntax or format detail. At 100% 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb+resource ('List squads') that plainly states the operation. The parenthetical adds useful scope details (plan gating, pagination). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_squad or list_squad_members, though those names are fairly self-evident, so clarity is strong but not maximally differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Related siblings (get_squad, list_squad_members) are never mentioned, and there's no when-not-to-use note. The only usage constraint is the implicit 'Growth plan and above' plan requirement, which is a mild gate but does not address tool selection.
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 convey the behavioral profile. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any authentication requirements. It is minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four words and directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding or redundancy. Perfect conciseness for a trivial getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is functional but thin. It mentions 'profile and quota' but does not hint at the response shape or any specific constraints. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more informative about what exactly is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no information. The description correctly implies the operation is parameterless. Per calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here since there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and the target (organisation profile and quota). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'get_org_stats' by naming quota explicitly, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_org_stats or list_org_team. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'cursor-paginated', which indicates pagination behavior, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it disclose any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, followed by a parenthetical that captures the key pagination trait. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent that the tool lists pipelines and that results are paginated. It does not describe the return structure, which would be useful but is not mandatory without an output schema. Overall, an agent can invoke this tool correctly based on the description and schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: cursor is described as an opaque token from prior pages, and page_size has minimum, maximum, and default. The description adds only the 'cursor-paginated' phrase, which is already implied by the schema's cursor field. There is no additional meaning provided in the tool description, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'hiring pipelines', and the parenthetical 'cursor-paginated' adds a concrete behavior. It distinguishes from sibling get_pipeline by being plural, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The resource is specific enough to avoid confusion with other list_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline. There is no mention of typical use cases, no exclusions, and no context about when pagination is necessary. The only clue is the verb 'List', which implicitly suggests using it to retrieve multiple pipelines, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the action (get) but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, nor does it mention potential error responses (e.g., 404 if id not found) or return format. For a simple get, the basic behavior is implied, but it lacks the explicitness expected when annotations are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently states the action and scope without elaboration, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with exactly one parameter and no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and the key input. However, it could have briefly mentioned that this is the read counterpart to create/update/delete webhook tools, which would fully contextualize it. Still, given the simplicity, it is complete enough for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description references the 'id' parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify that the id is the unique identifier of the webhook endpoint, nor does it offer any context about value formatting or constraints. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should have compensated, but it merely restates the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a webhook endpoint by id' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (webhook endpoint) with a clear scope (by id). It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like list_webhooks (retrieves all) and create_webhook (creates) because it specifies fetching a single endpoint by identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_webhooks or test_webhook. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would steer an agent to a different tool, leaving the decision entirely to inference from the name.
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 useful behaviors: default status (all) and cursor-based pagination. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'list'), nor does it describe the response shape or potential side effects. It provides some transparency but is not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the default status and pagination but omits search semantics, status value constraints, and what the response contains. Given the low complexity, it is minimally sufficient but leaves notable gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (cursor and page_size are documented, search and status are not). The description adds meaning for status ('all statuses by default') and cursor ('cursor-paginated'), which partially compensates for the schema gaps. However, it does not explain the 'search' parameter at all, leaving it ambiguous. The added value is moderate but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List assessments for the organisation'. It also gives scope (organisation) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_assessment_cases and list_assessment_results by specifying it lists assessments themselves, not cases or results. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage hints (all statuses by default, cursor-paginated) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool such as list_assessment_cases. The guidance is implicit at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cursor-based pagination and the Starter+ plan requirement, which are useful. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or the response format, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds relevant modifiers without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the meaning or usage of most filters, the return structure, or any prerequisites beyond the plan level, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 22% (only cursor and page_size have descriptions), so the description must compensate for the other seven parameters. It does not explain parameters like action, channel, outcome, or search, and the vague 'who did what, when' does not clarify them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'organisation compliance audit events', with contextual details about who/what/when and pagination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings since no other audit log tool exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. While it is the only audit log tool among siblings, the dimension requires explicit usage guidance, which is missing.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-pagination, a key behavioral trait, but does not mention return format, default filtering, or any other side effects or requirements. Given the absence of annotations, more transparency would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function and includes no unnecessary words or details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits return structure details and default behavior (e.g., whether all invites are returned when no filters are applied), which could leave an agent uncertain. However, the essential listing function and pagination are clear, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes three of four parameters (cursor, page_size, assessment) with status lacking a description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which relates to the cursor parameter. With 75% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (List), resource (invitations), and scope (across assessments), and mentions cursor-pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from get_invite, which retrieves a single invitation, and other invite-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invite or cancel_invite. The description implies a listing operation but does not state its role among siblings or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cursor-paginated', which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as read-only nature, response format, or what fields are present in each delivery attempt. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap—an agent is left to guess about ordering, filtering, or error semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination detail in parentheses. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately scannable. This is exactly the appropriate length for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but without an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the response contains (e.g., delivery attempt fields, statuses) or any ordering. It mentions pagination but not what a 'delivery attempt' entails. The description is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves operational details unspecified, which is a moderate gap given the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (cursor and page_size are described, id is not). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain that 'id' refers to the webhook ID, though this is implied by the tool name. It does reinforce pagination via 'cursor-paginated' but that is already in the schema. The description provides minimal added value over the schema; the missing id description is trivial but not compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('delivery attempts for a webhook'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_webhooks' which lists webhooks themselves. The parenthetical 'cursor-paginated' adds a key operational detail. An agent can clearly identify this as the tool for retrieving delivery history for a specific webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to see delivery attempts for a webhook) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as 'list_webhooks' (which lists configured webhooks) or 'get_webhook' (which retrieves webhook config). There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' guidance. The distinction is inferable from the name but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation creates a new draft and copies settings and tasks, which implies the original is unchanged. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, error conditions, or any further side effects. It adds useful context but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse and remember.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a basic tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and outcome but misses parameter semantics and usage guidance relative to siblings. It does not fully explain what the tool does beyond the clone action, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what 'slug' or 'title' mean. It can be inferred that slug identifies the source assessment and title is for the new draft, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clone') with a clear resource ('assessment') and specifies the scoped content ('settings + tasks') and the result ('a new draft'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete assessment tools, which either start fresh or modify existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you want to duplicate an existing assessment into a draft) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_assessment or update_assessment, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions and explicit routing are absent.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cursor-paginated', which is useful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any other side effects. Since listing is inherently non-destructive, the lack of explicit safety language is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately mentions pagination. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention what fields are returned or any default ordering, though these might be inferred from the resource name. This is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (cursor and page_size) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'organisation team members', making the purpose unambiguous. It also notes pagination, which is a key characteristic. It stands out distinctly from sibling tools, which focus on assessments, interviews, or other domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context about typical use cases or relationships to similar listing tools (e.g., list_squad_members).
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 discloses that no secrets are returned, which is important, but it does not state whether it is a read-only operation, whether it makes network calls, or what happens if credentials are invalid. The absence of annotations is partially compensated by the 'no secrets returned' note, but other behavioral aspects remain unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a critical qualifier ('no secrets returned'). Every word adds value, with no unnecessary filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the primary purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format, success/failure signals, and any side effects. For a verification tool with no annotations, this is a borderline acceptable but not fully complete definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the 'provider' parameter. The description mentions 'for a provider' but does not explain what the parameter expects (e.g., valid values, format, requiredness). Since the schema offers no help and the description adds almost no parameter-specific guidance, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Verify'), a clear resource ('stored ATS credentials'), and a scope ('for a provider'), while also noting that no secrets are returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_integrations and get_integration_connect_url, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case—verifying stored ATS credentials—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. There is no reference to compared tools or conditions. The guidance is adequate for a simple verification but lacks explicit routing.
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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses cursor-based pagination, which is useful, but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or describe the response shape (no output schema exists to fill this gap). For a list tool with zero annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the key pagination trait. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description captures the essential behavior. The only minor gap is the unstated read-only nature and absence of any return-format hint, but given there is no output schema and the operation is trivially safe, this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both cursor and page_size fully documented in the schema itself. The description's 'cursor-paginated' phrasing slightly reinforces the cursor parameter's role, but adds no material meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered webhook endpoints'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_webhook (single fetch), create/update/delete_webhook (mutations), and list_webhook_deliveries (deliveries, not endpoints). The cursor-pagination trait further narrows its identity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is only implied by the 'List' verb; the agent must infer this is the enumeration counterpart to create/update/delete/get_webhook. No mention of alternatives or exclusions.
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. It notes that the assessment is created as a draft and explicitly separates activation as a later PATCH step, so the agent understands creation does not publish. It doesn't mention permissions, validation, or response structure, but these are secondary for a simple create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a concise workflow hint. 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level workflow and neglects parameter semantics, prerequisites, or what the response contains. For such a complex tool, this is inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter-level guidance. With 17 parameters, including complex fields like pool_settings, tag_quotas, and shuffle_strategy, the description does nothing to explain their meaning or interrelationships. This is a major gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: create an assessment, and specifies it's a draft. It also indicates the workflow (attach cases, then PATCH status to active), which distinguishes it from updates or duplicates. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to create a draft assessment that will later be activated. It indirectly contrasts with update_assessment and duplicate_assessment, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The workflow hint is useful, though not fully prescriptive.
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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, which is a key behavioral trait, but provides no further details such as whether authentication is required, what happens if no integrations exist, or how statuses are represented. The minimal disclosure is acceptable but not robust.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the action, object, and read-only attribute, front-loading the most important information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its function. The read-only qualifier adds context that isn't available from structured data. It doesn't explain the exact content of the status list, but for a straightfoward list operation, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything at 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (ATS integration status), and specifies read-only behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_integration and get_integration_connect_url, which involve active testing or obtaining connection URLs. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to view integration status), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. It doesn't say 'use this to check connectivity' or contrast with test_integration. Siblings exist but no guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the cursor-pagination behavior and that results are 'completed', implying read-only access. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a list operation the risk is low and the pagination behavior is a key behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the single most important usage note about pagination. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with cursor pagination, the description is sufficient. It explains the pagination flow and implies the resource. There is no output schema, so return format isn't required. It could mention what 'completed' means, but that's business logic and likely implied by the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (cursor and page_size have descriptions, slug does not). The description adds usage context for the cursor parameter ('Use next_cursor') but does not explain slug beyond what the schema implies (the assessment identifier). The schema already covers pagination details, so the description adds marginal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists completed results for an assessment and mentions cursor-based pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assessments (which lists assessments themselves) and get_assessment (which fetches a single assessment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear instruction to use next_cursor for pagination, which is a concrete usage guideline. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
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:

[![praxicraft-assess-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/praxicraft-platform/praxicraft-assess-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/praxicraft-platform/praxicraft-assess-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![praxicraft-assess-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/praxicraft-platform/praxicraft-assess-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/praxicraft-platform/praxicraft-assess-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/praxicraft-platform/praxicraft-assess-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server