SitecoreMCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.5
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are well-differentiated by their specific operations and target resources (e.g., item management, indexing, security), with clear descriptions. However, the high number of tools and the pattern of having both 'by-id' and 'by-path' variants for many operations creates some redundancy that could lead to confusion in selection, though each variant serves a distinct purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
Naming is highly consistent across all tools, following a clear pattern of prefix-action-target-modifier (e.g., 'common-add-base-template-by-id', 'security-get-item-acl-by-path'). This structured approach makes it easy to predict tool names and understand their functions at a glance.
Tool Count2/5
With 153 tools, the count is excessive for typical MCP server purposes, making it overwhelming for agents to navigate. While the tools cover a comprehensive range of Sitecore operations, the sheer volume suggests poor scoping and could hinder usability due to cognitive overload.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides extensive coverage of Sitecore's capabilities, including item management, indexing, presentation, security, and more, with full CRUD operations and lifecycle support. No obvious gaps are present, ensuring agents can handle a wide array of tasks within the domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 153 of 153 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action ('Sets the item template') without explaining what this operation entails—e.g., whether it overwrites existing templates, requires specific permissions, affects item versions or workflows, or has side effects like validation or logging. It fails to provide any behavioral context 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, overly concise sentence that under-specifies the tool's functionality. While it is not verbose, it lacks necessary details and structure—such as explaining the context or outcomes—making it inefficient. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one provides minimal value, so it scores low for being too brief without substance.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions, nor does it explain what 'setting a template' means in practice. With 4 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed for effective use, but the description fails to provide it.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (id, template, fieldsToCopy, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.
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 'Sets the item template by the item's ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. It does not specify what an 'item' or 'template' is in this context, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-path' or 'common-get-item-template-by-id'. The purpose is vague and lacks specific details about the resource being manipulated.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the item must exist or be in a specific state, or compare it to sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or 'common-get-item-template-by-id' (which retrieves rather than sets). There is no explicit or implied context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action is 'resets' but doesn't clarify what that entails (e.g., irreversible data loss, default values, permissions required). It mentions fields can be 'names, fields or template fields' but doesn't explain the effect or constraints. This leaves critical behavioral aspects like destructiveness, side effects, or error handling unspecified.
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, compact sentence that efficiently states the core action and parameters. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating the action from parameter details, but it remains appropriately concise for the tool's 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on what 'resets' means behaviorally, the impact on the item, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and correct usage is insufficient, especially compared to siblings with similar functions.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'path' targets an item and 'name' includes field names with wildcards, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., what 'resets' means for each parameter type). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resets item fields, specified as either names, fields or template fields by path' restates the tool name ('reset-item-field-by-path') with minimal elaboration. It mentions 'item fields' and 'by path' but lacks specificity about what 'resets' means (e.g., to default values, clears data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-reset-item-field-by-id' or 'common-set-item-template-by-path'. This is borderline tautological with only slight expansion.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for maintenance or error recovery), or comparisons to siblings like 'common-reset-item-field-by-id' (which uses ID instead of path). Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('Sets') which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not describe side effects, permissions required, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple statement.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, and usage context, which are critical for a tool that modifies data. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall guidance is insufficient.
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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'path' and 'template' or how 'fieldsToCopy' affects the operation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 'Sets the item template by the item's path' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('item template'), but lacks specificity about what 'item template' means in this context or how it differs from similar operations like 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. The purpose is stated but not clearly distinguished from siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when an item path is available vs. an ID), or compare it to sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('gets') without details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, though it correctly implies a non-destructive read.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'item layout' returns, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use despite the well-documented 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all three parameters (id, finalLayout, language). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
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 'Gets item layout by Id' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'gets' and resource 'item layout', but lacks detail on what 'item layout' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'presentation-get-layout-by-path'. This provides basic clarity but no sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'presentation-get-layout-by-path' (which likely retrieves layout by path instead of ID) or clarify prerequisites such as required permissions or item existence. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction.
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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, returns a list or single user, handles pagination, or has rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a security tool in a system like Sitecore.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical details.
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 complexity (security tool in a CMS), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by filter' but doesn't explain what the filter parameter expects (e.g., format, syntax, examples like username patterns or email filters). This leaves the parameter's meaning unclear beyond the schema's basic type definition.
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 'Get a Sitecore users by filter' states the verb ('Get'), resource ('Sitecore users'), and mechanism ('by filter'), making the purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'users' means (e.g., user accounts, profiles) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-identity' or 'security-get-role-by-filter', which serve similar security-related retrieval purposes.
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 when to prefer this over 'security-get-user-by-identity' (which likely retrieves by specific identity) or 'security-get-role-by-filter' (which retrieves roles), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or system context. Usage is implied only by the name and description.
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. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data (e.g., roles or items), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a security-related 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse for a destructive security tool, lacking necessary details that would help an agent use it correctly. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for 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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive security operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter details, usage context, or expected outcomes. For such a tool, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'identity' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'identity' represents (e.g., username, email, or user ID), its format, or examples. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.
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 'Removes the Sitecore user' clearly states the action (removes) and resource (Sitecore user), but it's somewhat vague about what 'removes' entails (e.g., deletion, deactivation, or removal from a system). It distinguishes from siblings like 'security-disable-user' and 'security-unlock-user' by focusing on removal, but lacks specificity about the scope or permanence of the action.
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 prerequisites (e.g., user must exist or be unlocked), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove currently logged-in users), or related tools like 'security-disable-user' or 'security-remove-role-member'. Without this, an agent might misuse it in inappropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it retrieves metadata or full archives, if it's safe or has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, earning a high score for 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?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' entails (e.g., list vs. retrieve), return values, or error handling. For a tool in a large sibling set with potential nuances, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions for 'name' and 'database'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'Gets Sitecore database archives' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (Sitecore database archives), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-archive-item' or 'common-restore-archive-item', leaving ambiguity about what specific archives are retrieved versus individual items or restoration operations.
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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'common-get-archive-item' for individual items, 'common-restore-archive-item' for restoration), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, 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 mentions 'Gets a list,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify critical details like whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what the output format is (e.g., pagination, error handling), or if it's a safe operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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, straightforward sentence: 'Gets a list of items found in the specified archive.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the tool's scope or output.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, authentication), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that likely interacts with archives in a system, this minimal description leaves too much ambiguity for an agent to use it effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all four parameters (archive, database, itemId, identity). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already states (e.g., it does not explain relationships between parameters or usage examples). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
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 the tool 'Gets a list of items found in the specified archive,' which clearly indicates a read operation (verb 'gets') on a resource ('items in archive'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-archive' (which might retrieve archive metadata) or 'common-restore-archive-item' (which likely restores items), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
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. For example, it does not specify if this is for listing archived items versus retrieving them individually, or how it differs from tools like 'common-restore-archive-item' or 'common-remove-archive-item.' Without such context, an agent must 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. While 'gets' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, what format the returned data takes, or whether this operation is cached. For a retrieval tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 that efficiently states the core function. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval operation, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'item fields' refers to in this context. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'item' in this system, what 'fields' typically contain, or how the different return types affect the output format. The agent would need to infer much of this from context or trial-and-error, which is problematic for a tool with multiple configuration options and no structured output documentation.
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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'gets item fields as either names or fields or template fields' which loosely relates to the 'returnType' parameter's enum values, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting of parameter documentation.
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 the tool 'gets item fields... by its ID', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'item fields' specifically are and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'common-get-item-field-by-path' which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a path instead of ID. The description doesn't explain what makes this tool unique among the many 'get' operations in the sibling list.
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. With a sibling tool 'common-get-item-field-by-path' that appears functionally similar but uses a different identifier type, the description should explicitly indicate when to use ID-based lookup versus path-based lookup. There's also no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for this specific retrieval method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'gets' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the path is invalid. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by clarifying the output or usage context, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.
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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., field data structure), how errors are handled, or the significance of parameters like 'language' and 'database'. For a tool with rich input options, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'name' wildcards work with 'returnType'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 the tool 'gets item fields' by path, which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it's vague about what 'item fields' are and the distinction between 'names', 'fields', or 'template fields' is unclear. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'common-get-item-field-by-id' or 'common-get-item-template-by-path', leaving ambiguity in its specific purpose.
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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'common-get-item-field-by-id', 'common-get-item-template-by-path'), the description lacks context for choosing this one based on path-based retrieval or field types. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'resets' but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like whether this is destructive (likely yes, given 'reset'), what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no structured safety hints.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('resets item fields') and adds qualifying details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., destructiveness, auth needs), doesn't explain return values or errors, and provides minimal guidance on usage versus siblings. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying fields can be specified as 'names, fields or template fields', which loosely relates to the 'name' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'resets item fields' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'resets' means (e.g., to default values, clears data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'common-reset-item-field-by-path' beyond the ID parameter. It mentions fields can be specified 'as either names, fields or template fields' which adds some specificity but remains ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-reset-item-field-by-path' (which likely uses a path instead of ID) or other field modification tools. The description implies usage by ID but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with 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. It mentions using a 'RESTful API' but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether it's read-only or mutative. This is a significant gap for a search tool with 7 parameters.
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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output format, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what parameters like 'term', 'fields', 'facet', or 'database' do, nor does it provide syntax or format details. With 7 parameters, this is inadequate.
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 the tool 'Search Sitecore items using the ItemService RESTful API,' which provides a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('Sitecore items'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'indexing-find-item' or 'item-service-run-stored-search,' making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
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 'indexing-find-item' or 'item-service-run-stored-search.' The description only states what the tool does, without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read-only operation ('gets'), but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the item or placeholder setting does not exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?
Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
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%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'itemPath' is required, which is already covered in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps, as none exist.
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 the tool 'gets placeholder setting assigned on the item specified by path,' which clearly indicates a read operation targeting placeholder settings. However, it lacks specificity about what 'placeholder setting' entails (e.g., configuration, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-id' or other get operations, making it vague in context.
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 requiring an item path, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-id' or other presentation-related get operations, leaving usage entirely implied from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., if the path is invalid). It lacks details on return format or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse, though it could be more informative without sacrificing 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses a path-based approach, which is already clear from the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets rendering parameter for the item specified by path' states the action ('Gets') and resource ('rendering parameter'), but it's vague about what a 'rendering parameter' is and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-id'. It's adequate 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 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the item path and rendering ID, or when to choose this over 'by-id' variants. It leaves 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'resets the layout' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify what 'reset' means (e.g., reverts to default, clears settings), whether it's destructive or reversible, permission requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to enhance clarity without sacrificing 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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'reset' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with other presentation tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (path, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'finalLayout' or 'language' choices. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Resets the layout of an item by path' clearly states the action (resets) and target (layout of an item), but it's vague about what 'reset' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-set-layout-by-path'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the scope of resetting.
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 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' (which uses an ID instead of path) or 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' (which sets rather than resets). The description implies usage by path but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to 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 full burden. It mentions 'Sets layout' implying a mutation, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing layouts, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting other items), or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details like parameter highlights or usage context.
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 complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' entails, the impact of setting it, possible outcomes, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (itemPath, layoutPath, language, finalLayout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Sets layout') and target ('for an item specified by path'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'layout' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific path-based variant.
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. With siblings like 'presentation-set-layout-by-id' (ID-based) and 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' (merge operation), the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions, offering no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on linked layouts), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Updates rendering'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by hinting at key parameters or context. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's 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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'rendering' is in this system, the impact of updates, or return values. For a mutation tool in a presentation context with many sibling alternatives, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that parameters like 'placeholder' or 'dataSource' are optional updates ('if specified'), which is already clear from the schema's lack of required fields for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Updates rendering specified by item ID with new values,' which clearly identifies the action (update) and target (rendering). However, it's somewhat vague about what a 'rendering' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id,' which handle similar operations via different identifiers or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 prerequisites, such as needing an existing rendering to update, or compare it to sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path' (which uses a path instead of an ID) or 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id' (which creates new renderings). This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar 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 carries the full burden. It states it 'Gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of retrieving cache information, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., cache stats, configuration details), potential side effects, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'database'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining wildcard usage or database context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets information about Sitecore caches' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('Sitecore caches'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., status, size, configuration). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-get-database' or 'common-get-sitecore-job', which also retrieve information about different Sitecore components.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring specific permissions or database access, or compare it to other cache-related tools (none are listed in siblings, but context is missing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'creates' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether cloning is destructive to the original, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the cloning behavior (e.g., deep vs. shallow copy with 'recurse'), doesn't mention prerequisites like database context, and provides no output information. For a tool that creates new items, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification on path format, no explanation of how 'recurse' affects cloning). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
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 'Creates a new item clone based on the item provided by its path' clearly states the action (creates) and resource (item clone), but it's vague about what an 'item' represents in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-new-item-clone-by-id' which presumably does the same operation but uses an ID instead of a path. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain/context.
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. With siblings like 'common-new-item-clone-by-id' and 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-path', there's no indication of when path-based cloning is preferred over ID-based or what differentiates cloning from conversion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an item ID). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring to highlight required vs. optional parameters, but overall it's appropriately concise for the tool's 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, error conditions, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this mutation tool without additional 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It mentions 'parentPath', 'itemName', and 'templateId' but omits 'data' and 'options', leaving half the parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal semantics beyond naming some parameters, failing to explain their purpose or 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 ('Create'), resource ('new Sitecore item'), and key parameters ('under parent path with name using template id'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-edit-item' or 'common-new-item-clone-by-id', 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose 'item-service-edit-item' for updates or 'common-new-item-clone-by-id' for cloning. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a write operation ('Adds') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., affecting layouts), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.
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 action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (a write operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'placeholder setting' is, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it interacts with other presentation tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Adds a placeholder setting') and target ('to the item specified by path'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'placeholder setting' is and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'presentation-add-placeholder-setting-by-id' beyond the path-based approach mentioned in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'presentation-add-placeholder-setting-by-id' or other presentation tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the item must exist or have specific permissions, and doesn't mention any exclusions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw layout). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity in layout retrieval.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of layout retrieval (implied by parameters like finalLayout and language), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' means in this context, what the output contains, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (path, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'master:' default path context or the distinction between final and shared layouts. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets item layout by path' states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('item layout'), but it's vague about what 'item layout' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'presentation-get-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-get-default-layout-device'. It's adequate 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 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 'presentation-get-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-get-default-layout-device'. The description only states what it does, not when it's 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'layout' includes (e.g., structure, components). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' returns (e.g., data structure, fields), potential side effects, or error conditions, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite the simple parameter 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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with a clear parameter 'name' described as 'Name of the device to return.' The description implies the parameter specifies the device but doesn't elaborate on format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the layout for the device specified' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (layout for device), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'layout' entails (e.g., presentation settings, configuration) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'presentation-get-default-layout-device' or 'presentation-get-layout-by-id', which handle similar resources differently.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after setting a layout), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many sibling tools in the 'presentation-' group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'rendering definition' includes (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while stating the core purpose clearly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters (some with potential complexity like 'finalLayout'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or how parameters like 'dataSource' and 'placeholder' interact, making it inadequate for safe agent use without additional 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'itemId' is required, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or clarify complex interactions among parameters.
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 'Gets rendering definition by item id' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('rendering definition'), but it's vague about what a 'rendering definition' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-get-rendering-by-path' by specifying 'by item id', but doesn't explain the difference in scope or use case beyond the parameter type.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'presentation-get-rendering-by-path' or other presentation tools. The description implies usage for retrieving rendering definitions, but lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names 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 full burden. It states 'Gets' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a get operation, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's 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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'rendering definition' is, how the parameters affect the retrieval, or what the return value contains. For a presentation tool with multiple filters, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective use.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'path' is the primary input. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'dataSource' and 'placeholder' interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets rendering definition by item path' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (rendering definition), but it's vague about what a 'rendering definition' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-get-rendering-by-id' by specifying 'by path', but doesn't explain the difference between path-based and ID-based retrieval beyond the parameter type.
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'presentation-get-rendering-by-id' or other presentation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the parameter names 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 implies a read-only operation ('Gets'), but does not specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively invoke the tool.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Gets rendering parameter for the item specified by ID,' which clearly indicates a read operation (get) on a specific resource (rendering parameter). However, it does not differentiate from its sibling 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-path,' which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving the distinction unclear.
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 the sibling tool 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-path.' The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or specific scenarios for usage, offering only a basic functional statement.
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 'merges' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects like rate limits or data changes. The lack of details makes it difficult for an agent to assess risks or outcomes, though it doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with the conciseness criterion.
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 complexity of a 'merge' operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'merges' means in practice, the expected outcome, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with three parameters and potential data mutation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it incomplete.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'id', 'database', and 'language' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact during the merge process. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.
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 the action ('merges') and the resources ('final and shared layouts'), but it's vague about what 'merges' entails—does it combine, overwrite, or synchronize? It distinguishes from sibling 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' by specifying 'by item Id', but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous without clarifying the merge behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for merging layouts by ID, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' or other layout-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
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 burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how merging affects data, or any side effects, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity of a merge operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what merging entails, the result format, error conditions, or how it interacts with other layout tools, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents parameters 'path' and 'language'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'path' is used for merging layouts, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 the action ('Merges') and target ('final and shared layouts by item path'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what 'merges' entails operationally and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'presentation-merge-layout-by-id', leaving ambiguity about when to use path vs. ID.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from 'presentation-merge-layout-by-id' or other layout-related tools in the sibling list, offering no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'resets the layout' but fails to explain what this operation does—whether it's destructive (e.g., removes custom settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the outcome looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Resets the layout'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the reset behavior, potential impacts, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (id, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'finalLayout' interacts with 'language' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('resets') and resource ('layout of an item'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what 'resets' entails—whether it restores defaults, clears customizations, or something else—and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-reset-layout-by-path' or 'presentation-set-layout-by-id', leaving ambiguity in 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., item state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'presentation-reset-layout-by-path' (which likely uses a path instead of an ID), leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Sets layout', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Sets layout for an item specified by Id.' It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail; within its brevity, every word contributes to the core purpose.
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 complexity (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, not explaining parameter interactions (e.g., how layoutPath, layoutId, and finalLayout relate) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets layout for an item specified by Id' clearly states the action (sets layout) and target (item by Id), but it's vague about what 'layout' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' or 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the layout concept 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' (using path instead of Id) and 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' (resetting vs. setting), the description offers no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names 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. It states 'Gets' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on invalid paths (e.g., errors or null returns), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.
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 zero waste—'Gets a Sitecore item by its path.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' returns (e.g., item data, fields, or a reference), behavioral aspects like error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a rich ecosystem, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (path, database, language, version) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying path-based retrieval, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets a Sitecore item by its path' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('Sitecore item'), but it's vague about what 'gets' entails (e.g., retrieves metadata, content, or full object) and doesn't distinguish from many sibling tools like 'provider-get-item-by-id' or 'item-service-get-item-by-path', which likely serve similar purposes. It's adequate 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 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 'provider-get-item-by-id' (for ID-based retrieval) or 'item-service-get-item-by-path' (which appears similar). The description implies usage for path-based retrieval but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets' implying a read operation, but does not specify if it requires permissions, returns null for missing items, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., item details, error handling) or behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.
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 has 100% description coverage, detailing all five parameters (e.g., path, uri, database, language, version). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining URI format nuances or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Gets a Sitecore item by its URI,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'provider-get-item-by-id' or 'provider-get-item-by-path,' which also retrieve items but by different identifiers. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a URI is available compared to using ID or path-based retrieval. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects child items, or has confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 destructive tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the options parameter, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.
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%, meaning none of the parameters (id and options with database, language, version) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by its ID', which partially covers the 'id' parameter but ignores the 'options' object entirely. This fails to compensate for the significant coverage gap, leaving most parameters unexplained.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-remove-archive-item' or 'security-remove-user', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.
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. With many sibling tools performing various operations on Sitecore items (e.g., 'item-service-edit-item', 'item-service-get-item'), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this deletion is appropriate, or what happens to related data after deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to validation or workflow states, or how conflicts are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 at just 7 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid edit, what fields can be modified, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The context demands much more information than provided.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including nested objects), the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'by its ID'. It doesn't explain what 'data' should contain, what 'options' controls, or how the parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 the action ('Edit') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-update-item' (if present) or explain how it differs from other item modification tools in the list.
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. With many sibling tools available (like 'item-service-create-item', 'item-service-delete-item', 'item-service-get-item'), there's no indication of when editing is appropriate versus creating new items or using other modification methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial vs. full item data, or handles errors. The description lacks crucial context about what 'Get' entails 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 2 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured information about parameters, behavior, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required 'id' and one complex 'options' object with 6 sub-properties), the description adds no parameter information beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents, what the 'options' control, or how they affect the retrieval, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item-by-path' or 'provider-get-item-by-id', which perform similar retrieval operations using different identifiers.
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. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving items (e.g., 'item-service-get-item-by-path', 'provider-get-item-by-id'), there's no indication of when ID-based retrieval is preferred over path-based or other methods, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. For a tool with nested parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to the tool's function.
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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage.
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 'path' as the lookup method but does not explain the 'options' parameter or its sub-properties (e.g., database, language, fields). With 2 parameters and rich nested structure, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 resource ('a Sitecore item'), specifying the lookup method ('by its path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item' (likely by ID) and 'provider-get-item-by-path' (similar but different service), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specific differentiation details, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. Sibling tools include similar retrieval methods (e.g., 'item-service-get-item', 'provider-get-item-by-path'), but the description does not mention these or specify contexts like preferring path-based over ID-based lookup. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid ID). For a tool with nested parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.
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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the 'options' parameter, return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with a content management system, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions only the 'id' parameter, ignoring the complex 'options' object with 6 sub-properties (e.g., database, language, fields). It fails to explain what these options do or their default values, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
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 resource ('children of a Sitecore item'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the action is performed 'by its ID', which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item-descendants' or 'item-service-get-item', which suggests room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'item-service-get-item-descendants' for deeper hierarchy, 'item-service-get-item-by-path' for path-based lookup), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't confirm safety, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a tool with complex options and no structured safety hints, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose effectively, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the optional 'options' parameter, return values, or behavioral traits like error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'id' parameter, ignoring the 'options' object with 6 nested properties (e.g., database, language, includeMetadata). This leaves most parameters unexplained, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 descendants') and resource ('Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item-children' or 'item-service-get-item', which might retrieve different scopes of item data. This 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'item-service-get-item-children' for immediate children only or 'item-service-get-item' for the item itself. It also lacks prerequisites like required permissions or database context, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only or mutative, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with complex parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from additional context.
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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or the semantics of the options parameter. For a query execution tool with rich configuration, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.
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 'definition item ID' which maps to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'options' object or its nested properties (database, language, pagination, fields, etc.). It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 clearly states the action ('Run') and resource ('stored Sitecore query'), specifying it's executed by 'definition item ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'item-service-run-stored-search' by focusing on stored queries rather than searches, but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 'item-service-run-stored-search' or 'item-service-search-items'. The description implies usage when you have a stored query ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. It's a basic statement without operational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs a search but doesn't explain what 'run' entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it modifies data, potential side effects, performance implications, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool effectively in 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'id' parameter implicitly ('by its definition item ID') and doesn't address 'term' or the complex 'options' object with 8 sub-properties. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Run') and the resource ('a stored Sitecore search by its definition item ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-run-stored-query' or 'item-service-search-items', which appear to be related search tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 prerequisites, context, or compare to sibling tools such as 'item-service-run-stored-query' or 'item-service-search-items', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions, which are critical for a security-related 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, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the essential action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details.
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 complexity of a security mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It doesn't explain what 'identity' represents (e.g., username, email, or user ID), its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation for the single required parameter.
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 ('Enables') and the resource ('Sitecore user account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'security-disable-user' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other security tools like 'security-unlock-user' or 'security-set-user'.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be disabled), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'security-disable-user' for contrasting scenarios, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool retrieves a user by name, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it returns full user details, what happens if the user doesn't exist (e.g., returns null vs error), or any authentication/authorization requirements. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security-related 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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core action ('Get a Sitecore user').
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 security context, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format (e.g., user object with fields), error conditions, or security implications (e.g., if it reveals sensitive data). For a tool with one parameter but in a sensitive domain, more context 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by its name' for the 'identity' parameter, which adds some semantic context (that 'identity' likely refers to a username), but doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, domain prefixes like 'sitecore\\username'), examples, or whether it accepts email addresses or other identifiers. This partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.
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 resource ('a Sitecore user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-filter' or 'security-get-current-user', which serve similar user retrieval purposes with different approaches.
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 when to prefer this tool over 'security-get-user-by-filter' (which might allow broader searches) or 'security-get-current-user' (which retrieves the authenticated user), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements.
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 states the tool creates a user, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., email notifications), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps 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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details—it doesn't explain what 'identity', 'password', 'email', etc., represent or their formats. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 the action ('Creates') and resource ('new Sitecore user'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-set-user' or 'security-new-role', which are also user/security management tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'security-set-user' (which might update existing users) or 'security-new-role'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or when user creation is appropriate, offering no explicit or implied usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'Adds'), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on existing templates), or error handling, leaving significant gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adding a base template' entails operationally, the return value, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'id' and 'template' are required, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 ('Adds') and target ('a base template to a template item by its ID'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-add-base-template-by-path', which performs the same function but uses a path instead of ID, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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 'common-add-base-template-by-path' or other template-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Adds') but doesn't explain what 'adding a base template' means operationally, whether it's a mutation or read operation, what permissions are required, or what happens if the template already exists. For a tool that appears to modify content (based on 'add' verb), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear naming and good schema documentation. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the tool's function.
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 that appears to perform content modification (adding base templates) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'base template' means in this context, what the operation entails, what success/failure looks like, or how this interacts with the broader template system. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'by its path' which aligns with the 'path' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.
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 ('Adds') and target ('a base template to a template item by its path'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'common-add-base-template-by-id' by specifying 'by-path' approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb+resource combination is specific enough for understanding.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-add-base-template-by-id' or other template-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. While the 'by-path' naming implies a path-based approach, no explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a safe operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or any side effects (like affecting children when 'recurse' is true). The description lacks behavioral context beyond the minimal functional statement.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. However, it could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information given the complexity of the tool, but it's appropriately concise for its length.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover the tool's behavior, error conditions, return values, or important details like how 'recurse' affects children or the implications of 'ifExist' choices. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying language versioning. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'ifExist' and 'ifNoSourceVersion' affect behavior) or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Creates a version') and resource ('item'), specifying it's for adding a language version based on an existing one. It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-remove-item-version-by-id' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'common-add-item-version-by-path' beyond the ID vs path parameter difference.
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 like 'common-add-item-version-by-path' or other versioning tools. The description implies it's for language version creation but doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose this over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates a version' but doesn't clarify if this is a write operation (implied), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or how errors are handled. The description mentions 'based on an existing language version' but doesn't explain what happens if that version is missing (though the 'ifNoSourceVersion' parameter hints at this). For a mutation tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It front-loads the key action ('Creates a version') and specifies the method ('by its path') and context ('in a new language based on an existing language version'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond the basic action, lacks guidance on usage scenarios, and omits details about return values or error conditions. For a tool that creates language versions with multiple configuration options, more context is needed to ensure proper agent understanding.
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 78% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'recurse', 'ifExist', or other parameters. While it implies language handling, the schema already documents 'language' and 'targetLanguage' parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't compensate for the 22% coverage gap (e.g., for parameters without descriptions).
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 ('Creates a version') and resource ('item (by its path)') with specific context ('in a new language based on an existing language version'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'common-add-item-version-by-id' by specifying the 'by-path' approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other version management tools like 'common-remove-item-version-by-path'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for creating language versions of items, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing source language versions), when to choose this over 'common-add-item-version-by-id', or what happens if the item doesn't exist. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description offers no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('converts') but fails to explain critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or any side effects like changes to related items. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with best practices for 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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke it safely and effectively in a real-world scenario.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'recurse' effect on branches or 'passThru' return behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 ('converts') and resource ('an item from a clone to a fully independent item'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-path', which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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, such as the sibling 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-path' or other clone-related tools like 'common-get-item-clone-by-id'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
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 conversion but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it affects related items, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of converting clones (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or side effects, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'recurse' or 'passThru' in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'converts' and the resource 'item from a clone to a fully independent item', specifying the action and transformation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-id' (which likely converts by ID instead of path), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.
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 the sibling 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-id' or other clone-related tools like 'common-new-item-clone-by-path'. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the information is returned in (e.g., structured data vs. raw text).
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., database properties, status, configuration) or provide any context about Sitecore database concepts, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.
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 the parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets information about') and resource ('Sitecore databases'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-get-archive' or 'common-get-cache', but the specificity of 'databases' provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'common-get-archive', 'common-get-cache'), the description lacks context about when database information is needed versus other Sitecore components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns clones but does not specify what 'clones' entail (e.g., format, structure, or limitations), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 is insufficient for a tool that retrieves data. It does not explain the return format, what 'clones' are, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively use the tool in context with its siblings.
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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters 'id' and 'database'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, but the schema's completeness justifies a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('all the clones for the specified item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-clone-by-path', which performs a similar function but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'common-get-item-clone-by-path' for path-based retrieval or other item-related tools in the list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for its application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns clones but doesn't specify what 'clones' means in this context, the format of the return data, potential errors, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for 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?
Given the complexity of retrieving item clones (implied by the sibling tools involving clones) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'clones' are, the return format, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable tool invocation.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of path formats or database naming conventions. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately documents the parameters.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('all the clones for the specified item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-clone-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 'common-get-item-clone-by-id' or other item retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names 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 states the tool 'gets' item references, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to understand quickly.
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 is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like pagination or performance considerations. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.
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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('item references for a Sitecore item'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id' by focusing on where the item is used rather than what references it, but could be more explicit about the difference.
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 'common-get-item-reference-by-path' or 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id'. The description mentions the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets item references' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints or behavioral notes to improve clarity.
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 is incomplete for a tool that retrieves references. It does not explain the format or content of the returned references, potential limitations, or how results are presented. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's functionality.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (path, database, language, version) with their purposes and defaults. The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('item references for a Sitecore item by its path'), and it explains the output ('showing where it is used throughout the system'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-reference-by-id', which likely serves a similar purpose but uses an ID instead of a path, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'common-get-item-reference-by-id' for ID-based lookups or other reference-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
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 describes a read operation ('Gets'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not address other critical aspects such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned referrer items. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
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 complexity of a tool that retrieves referrer items in a content management system, the description is insufficient. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on return format, pagination, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool use is incomplete, especially for a read operation that may involve nuanced data retrieval.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all four parameters (id, database, language, version). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as examples or edge cases. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.
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's purpose: 'Gets items referring to a Sitecore item by its ID, showing which items reference it.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('items referring to a Sitecore item'), and mechanism ('by its ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-referrer-by-path', which likely serves a similar purpose but uses a path instead of an ID.
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 its sibling 'common-get-item-referrer-by-path' or other related tools like 'common-get-item-reference-by-id', leaving the agent without context for selection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative usage scenarios provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets' items, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details error handling. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with four parameters.
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 without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 moderate complexity (four parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format (e.g., what 'showing which items reference it' entails), and usage context, failing to compensate for the absence of structured metadata.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (path, database, language, version) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('items referring to a Sitecore item by its path'), explaining it retrieves referrers. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id' or 'common-get-item-reference-by-path', which likely serve similar purposes but with different identifiers, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid Sitecore path, or comparisons to siblings like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id', leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 what the tool does without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned template information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with no wasted 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves template information. It fails to explain what 'template information' includes, potential errors, or system constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the clear 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('path' and 'database') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or database context nuances, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Gets') and resource ('template information for a Sitecore item'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-template-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'common-get-item-template-by-id' for ID-based retrieval or other item-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear.
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 describes a read operation ('Gets'), which implies it's non-destructive, but fails to mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or the format of returned entries. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output format, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively invoke the tool, especially in a server with many sibling tools.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool retrieves history entries for an item by ID, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without extra value from the description.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('entries from the workflow history for the specified item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-path', which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 its sibling 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-path' or other history-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names 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 states it 'Gets entries' (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of events, pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing 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?
Given the complexity (a workflow history retrieval tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'workflow history' entails, the format of returned entries, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the 'path' is for an item. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value beyond the schema.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('entries from the workflow history for the specified item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-id' (which likely does the same thing but uses an ID instead of path), so it misses the highest 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'by-id' version or other workflow-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, 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 full burden. It states 'Executes workflow action' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens upon execution. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero 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?
Given the tool involves executing workflow actions (likely a mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain workflow command types or comment usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Executes workflow action') and resource ('for a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' which appears to perform the same function but uses a path instead of ID, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 sibling list includes 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' which likely serves a similar purpose, but the description doesn't mention this alternative or any context-specific usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Executes workflow action', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., changes item state), potential side effects (e.g., triggers notifications), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe use.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details like 'by its path'.
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 complexity of a workflow execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, permissions), usage context, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance for safe and effective use in a Sitecore environment.
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 all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Executes') and resource ('workflow action for a Sitecore item'), specifying it's done 'by its path'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'common-invoke-workflow-by-id' by indicating the path-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 the 'common-invoke-workflow-by-id' sibling. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., item must exist, workflow state), exclusions, or typical scenarios. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters, with no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a clone, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., affecting original item), rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses critical context for safe invocation.
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 zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('creates a new item clone') and specifies the key input ('based on the item provided by its ID'). Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a write operation (cloning items) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the clone entails (e.g., copies data, structure), potential impacts, or return values. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (id, destination, name, recurse, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('creates') and resource ('new item clone') with the specific mechanism ('based on the item provided by its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-new-item-clone-by-path' by specifying the ID-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-new-item-clone-by-path' or other cloning-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the source item must exist or if specific permissions are needed. Usage is implied only by the action described.
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 states it 'creates a new entry', implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complexity of a workflow mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new entry') and the target ('in the workflow history for a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-new-item-workflow-event-by-path', which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the path-based sibling or other workflow-related tools like 'common-invoke-workflow-by-id'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., history persistence), error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for safe agent use.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, target, and key identifier (path).
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'creates' entails (e.g., success/failure responses, history entry format), behavioral constraints, or error handling. Given the complexity (6 parameters, write operation), more context is needed for safe agent invocation.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'path' is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the semantic lifting.
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 ('Creates a new entry') and the target ('workflow history for a Sitecore item by its path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-path' (which retrieves rather than creates) and 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' (which triggers workflow transitions rather than logging history). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'common-new-item-workflow-event-by-id' (the ID-based variant), missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., item existence, workflow states), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' for actual workflow transitions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. 'Publishes' implies a mutation, but it doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific auth, or has other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to grasp quickly, which aligns well with best practices for 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?
Given the complexity of an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation despite the comprehensive 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage tips, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('publishes') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'common-publish-item-by-path', which performs the same operation but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'common-publish-item-by-path' for publishing by path or other publishing-related tools in the list. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('publishes') but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 complexity of an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, error handling, and output expectations. For such a tool, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to aid the agent in correct invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('publishes') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-publish-item-by-id', which performs the same action but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for potential confusion.
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 'common-publish-item-by-id' (which uses an ID) or other publishing-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'permanently' which implies irreversibility, but doesn't disclose other critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is destructive (implied but not explicit), error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a mutation tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted verbiage.
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 destructive mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks crucial context about behavioral implications (e.g., confirmation prompts, side effects), error handling, and what constitutes successful execution. The high schema coverage helps, but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'archive' and 'database', or clarify what 'identity' represents beyond the schema's description). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes') and target ('items permanently from the specified archive'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-restore-archive-item' or 'item-service-delete-item', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'common-restore-archive-item' for restoration, 'item-service-delete-item' for deletion), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this permanent removal operation.
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 states the tool 'Removes a base template', implying a destructive mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, potential side effects on the item, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted 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?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), output expectations, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a real-world 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (id, template, database). The description mentions 'by its ID' but doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'template' or typical values. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
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 ('Removes') and the resource ('a base template from a template item by its ID'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-remove-base-template-by-path', which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 'common-remove-base-template-by-path' or other template-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for application, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 states this is a removal operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what 'removes' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, reversible change, permissions required, side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., success/failure indicators, error conditions, or return values), nor does it address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no added value.
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 ('Removes') and target ('a base template from a template item by its path'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'common-remove-base-template-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path.
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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'common-remove-base-template-by-id' or explain why one would choose path-based removal over ID-based removal, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Removes a version', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or the consequences (e.g., data loss, recycling vs. permanent deletion). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of a destructive mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Removes') and resource ('a version of a Sitecore item by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'common-remove-item-version-by-path', which performs the same operation but uses a path instead of an ID for identification.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions, or when to choose this over 'common-remove-item-version-by-path' or other deletion tools like 'common-remove-archive-item'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.
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 states 'Removes a version,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or the impact on related items. The description lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or confirmation prompts, which are essential for a destructive 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity (7 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like the effects of 'archive' or 'recurse' parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., path, language with globbing, recurse). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 ('Removes') and resource ('a version of a Sitecore item by path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'common-remove-item-version-by-id' (which appears in the list), which would require mentioning the path-based approach versus ID-based alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'common-remove-item-version-by-id' or other deletion tools in the sibling list. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as required permissions or database context, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action 'Restores' but does not explain critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a restoration operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, error handling, or result format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
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 'Restores' and the resource 'items to the original database from the specified archive,' making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-remove-archive-item' or 'common-get-archive-item,' which handle related archive operations but with different actions.
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 when to restore from an archive versus other item management tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for restoration, leaving usage unclear.
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 states it 'Checks' inheritance, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'checks' entails (e.g., returns boolean, detailed report, or error handling). It also doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database system.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean result, inheritance chain, error messages), which is critical for a 'test' operation. Given the complexity of template inheritance checking in a content management context, more behavioral context is needed.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or interaction between parameters), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('item inherits from the specified template by its path'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-test-base-template-by-id' (which likely checks by ID instead of path), though the distinction is implied through the naming convention.
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 the sibling tool 'common-test-base-template-by-id' or explain why one would choose path-based checking over ID-based checking. There's also no information about prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates references or removes links, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on linked items, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Updates all references'). It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two operations (update vs. remove) for clarity. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, and doesn't explain the return values or outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'newTarget' and 'removeLink' in the context of the tool's purpose, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions offer. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Updates all references') and resource ('the specified item'), specifying it operates on references/links to an item. It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id' (which retrieves referrers) by focusing on updating rather than getting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'common-update-item-referrer-by-path' (a sibling tool), which likely performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID.
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 mentions updating references to point to a new target or removing links, but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or compare with sibling tools like 'common-update-item-referrer-by-path' or other update/reference tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates or removes links, implying a mutation operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on linked items, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly clearer in structure (e.g., separating the update and remove options more distinctly). Overall, it is appropriately concise for the tool's 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 tool's mutation nature, 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions), output format, error cases, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that modifies references across a database, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'path' and 'NewTarget' in context, but does not provide additional semantics, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates all references to the specified item (by its path) to point to a new provided in the -NewTarget or removes links to the item.' It specifies the verb ('Updates'), resource ('references'), and scope ('all references'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-update-item-referrer-by-id', which likely performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path.
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 'common-update-item-referrer-by-id' or other referrer-related tools. It mentions the action but lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 mentions the date format requirement and the API used, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like (e.g., result format, pagination), error handling, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a search tool with complex parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a specific formatting note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the second sentence about date format is somewhat isolated and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.
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 complexity (4 parameters, nested criteria array, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. For a search tool with rich input schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective agent use.
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 75%, with three parameters well-documented (index, first, skip) and one (criteria) having extensive but redundant field enum listings. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions date format for ISO 8601, which is useful but not explicitly tied to any parameter (likely for date values in criteria). It does not clarify the structure or usage of the complex criteria array beyond what the schema provides.
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's purpose: 'Finds items using the Sitecore Content Search API.' It specifies the verb ('finds') and resource ('items'), and mentions the API used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-search-items' or 'provider-get-item-by-query', which appear to serve similar search functions, 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 mentions date format requirements but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling search tools. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get information'), which is helpful, but fails to mention critical aspects such as whether it returns detailed index metadata, pagination behavior, error handling for invalid filters, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 ('Get information about Sitecore search indexes') and succinctly adds filtering details. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure, or examples), error conditions, or operational constraints. While it covers the basic purpose and parameters, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.
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 lists the filterable attributes ('name, database, running status, or corrupted status'), which aligns with the input schema parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., 'name' supports wildcards). The description adds minimal value beyond restating parameter names, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about Sitecore search indexes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Sitecore search indexes'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indexing-find-item' or 'indexing-initialize-search-index,' 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?
The description mentions filtering capabilities ('Can filter by name, database, running status, or corrupted status'), which implies usage for retrieving filtered index information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'indexing-find-item' for item-level searches or 'indexing-initialize-search-index' for index management), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
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 mentions the action 'initialize' but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential side effects (e.g., reindexing data), performance impact, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and condition, with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and default behavior without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of initializing search indexes (a potentially impactful operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or use cases. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description in this 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 clearly states the verb 'initialize' and the resource 'Sitecore search indexes,' specifying that it can target one or all indexes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indexing-resume-search-index' or 'indexing-stop-search-index,' which might handle similar resources but with different actions.
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 guidance by noting the default behavior when no name is provided, but it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use this versus other indexing tools like 'indexing-suspend-search-index' or 'indexing-get-search-index,' leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Rebuilds the index', implying a potentially destructive or resource-intensive write operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, impact on system performance, whether it's asynchronous, or error handling. The mention of wildcard filtering adds some context, but overall, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Rebuilds the index') and includes key details like path-based targeting and wildcard support. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured to separate usage notes from feature details.
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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, performance impact), expected outputs, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that rebuilds indexes, this gap is significant and could lead to misuse by an AI agent.
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 parameters ('path' and 'indexName') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'wildcard filtering for the index name', which hints at the 'indexName' parameter's flexibility but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 verb ('Rebuilds') and resource ('the index for a given tree with the specified root item by path and index name'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'indexing-initialize-search-index-item-by-id', which appears to serve a similar function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'indexing-initialize-search-index' (which might rebuild a full index) or 'indexing-initialize-search-index-item-by-id'. It mentions wildcard filtering for the index name, but this is a feature detail rather than usage context, so the agent lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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 indicates a destructive action ('Removes') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of wildcard filtering adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are insufficiently covered 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a useful detail about wildcard filtering. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action and a feature detail, but for a destructive tool, it lacks information on prerequisites, consequences, or response format. The schema coverage helps, but overall completeness is adequate with room for improvement.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('path' and 'indexName'). The description adds minimal value by implying wildcard support for 'indexName', but does not elaborate on syntax or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 ('Removes') and target ('the item with the specified path from the search index'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'indexing-remove-search-index-item-by-id' by specifying removal by path rather than ID, but does not explicitly compare to other removal tools in the list.
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 'indexing-remove-search-index-item-by-id' or other removal tools in the sibling list. It mentions wildcard filtering for the index name, but this is a feature detail rather than usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Adds' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'placeholder setting' is in this context, how the addition affects the item, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that modifies presentation data, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'itemId' and 'placeholderSettingId', or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and the target ('placeholder setting to the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-add-placeholder-setting-by-path' or 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id', which would require mentioning the ID-based approach specifically.
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'presentation-add-placeholder-setting-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or other presentation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'add' operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe what happens if the rendering already exists, whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero unnecessary content.
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 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'finalLayout' interacts with 'placeHolder', or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds a rendering') and target ('to presentation of an item specified by item ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 the sibling tool 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' as an alternative for path-based operations, nor does it explain prerequisites like required permissions or when this operation is appropriate versus other presentation tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Adds a rendering,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe potential side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens if the rendering already exists. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.
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 100%, providing clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds a rendering') and target ('to presentation of an item specified by path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id' or other presentation-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('gets'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, what 'default' entails, or the return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'default layout' means, how it differs from sibling tools, or what the return value includes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 'Gets the default layout' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (default layout), but it's vague about what 'default layout' means in this context (e.g., for presentations, devices, or a specific system). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'presentation-get-layout-device' or 'presentation-get-layout-by-id', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity.
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. With siblings like 'presentation-get-layout-device' and 'presentation-get-layout-by-id', the description lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess 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.
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 indicates a read operation ('Gets'), implying non-destructive behavior, but fails to mention any constraints like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action and resource.
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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not address behavioral aspects like error handling, return format, or practical usage context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to effectively invoke the tool beyond basic parameter input.
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 has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all six parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 ('Gets') and the resource ('placeholder setting assigned on the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-path', which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-path' or other presentation-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Removes', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function.
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 complexity (6 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe and effective use, leaving critical information gaps.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'itemId' is required, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Removes') and target ('placeholder setting from the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'presentation-remove-placeholder-setting-by-path', which performs the same operation but uses a path instead of an ID.
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 'presentation-remove-placeholder-setting-by-path' or other removal tools in the sibling list. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for its use.
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 behavioral traits. It states the tool removes a placeholder setting, implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the setting doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like what 'removes' entails in this context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a path-based operation, which is covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Removes') and the target ('placeholder setting from the item specified by path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'presentation-remove-placeholder-setting-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the sibling tool 'presentation-remove-placeholder-setting-by-id' for ID-based removal, nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or item states, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'removes' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects published content, or what happens to dependent components. It provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.
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 destructive mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'renderings' are in this context, what the consequences of removal are, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for understanding this operation's impact.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'owners item ID' which aligns with the 'itemId' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about parameter interactions, filtering logic, or how multiple optional filters combine. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes renderings') and target ('from an item by owners item ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' which performs the same operation but uses a different identifier type.
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 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' or other presentation manipulation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for removing renderings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a destructive action ('Removes renderings') but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The phrase 'by owners item path' is somewhat ambiguous about ownership 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 destructive tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool safely and effectively.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'path' but doesn't explain path format or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Removes renderings') and target ('from an item by owners item path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-path', which appear to perform similar removal operations on different aspects of presentation components.
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. With multiple sibling tools for removing renderings, parameters, and placeholder settings (e.g., 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-id', 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-path'), there is no indication of when path-based removal is preferred over ID-based removal or what distinguishes rendering removal from parameter removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states a destructive action ('Removes') but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the system responds. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide essential context for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose and front-loaded with the core action.
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 destructive mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, potential side effects, error conditions, or relationship to other presentation tools. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.
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 ('Removes') and target ('the specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-path', but the naming convention implies the difference is ID vs path-based identification.
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 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-path' or other presentation manipulation tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or what happens after removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a parameter, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context, and output information, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes') and the target ('specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on the item specified by path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-id', which performs the same operation but uses a different identifier method.
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 'presentation-remove-rendering-parameter-by-id' or other presentation tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Updates' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on related items, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'rendering' is in this context, the impact of updates, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying updates to 'new values' for unspecified fields, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Updates') and target ('rendering specified by item path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-path', which appear to perform similar operations on different identifiers or aspects.
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 'presentation-set-rendering-by-id' for ID-based updates or other presentation tools for different operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Adds and updates'), but fails to detail critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or the effect on existing parameters. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight key parameters or usage scenarios, but overall it avoids 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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of the 'parameter' object or the implications of 'finalLayout'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds and updates') and the target ('the specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-path' or 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-id', which handle similar operations via different identifiers or read-only actions.
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 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-path' for path-based operations or 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-id' for retrieval. It also lacks information on prerequisites, like whether the item or rendering must exist, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'adds and updates', implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, the return format, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds and updates') and the target ('the specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on the item specified by path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-id' or 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-path', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 when to choose 'by-path' over 'by-id' versions or when to use it compared to 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path'. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'switches' renderings, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting layouts), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like 'existing rendering' and 'item ID'.
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 complexity (mutation with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly. For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to be considered 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'itemId' holds renderings and 'oldRenderingId' and 'newRenderingId' are involved in the switch. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights like parameter interactions or examples.
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 ('switches') and the resource ('an existing rendering'), specifying it operates on renderings within items. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-id' by focusing on replacement rather than addition or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-unique-id', which are similar tools using different identifiers.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing renderings), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path'. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools based on ID, path, or unique ID.
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 indicates a mutation ('switches'), implying changes to presentation layouts, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on other renderings), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies content without structured safety hints.
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 action and key parameters. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., success/failure outcomes, rate limits), does not explain the 'finalLayout' parameter's implications, and omits any mention of return values or error handling, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description mentions paths for the item and renderings, aligning with the schema, but adds no extra meaning, syntax examples, or clarification beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter 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 the action ('switches') and the resources involved ('existing rendering' and 'alternate one'), specifying that both are identified by paths. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' by focusing on replacement rather than addition or removal, but does not explicitly contrast with 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-unique-id'.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing renderings), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters 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 states the tool 'switches' a rendering, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or outcomes.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally, what happens to the old rendering, or what the result looks like. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions 'item ID', 'unique ID', and 'new rendering ID', which align with required parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('switches'), the target ('an existing rendering'), and the mechanism ('specified by unique ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' and 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path' by specifying the 'unique ID' method. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives or explain why one would use unique ID versus ID/path.
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 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path'. The description mentions the tool's mechanism but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Gets' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., what happens if both 'path' and 'id' are provided). Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('a Sitecore item'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'provider-get-item-by-path' or 'item-service-get-item', which also retrieve items using different identifiers.
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 'provider-get-item-by-path' (for path-based retrieval) or 'item-service-get-item' (potentially a different service). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if multiple items match the query. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the concise structure.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying query execution, aligning with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('a Sitecore item'), specifying it uses a 'Sitecore query' method. It distinguishes from siblings like 'provider-get-item-by-id' or 'provider-get-item-by-path' by emphasizing query-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other query tools like 'item-service-run-stored-query' or 'indexing-find-item'.
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. With many sibling tools for item retrieval (e.g., by ID, path, URI, or other query methods), the description lacks context on preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only query, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the response format might be. For a GraphQL query tool, this omission is significant as it leaves the agent unaware of operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of GraphQL queries, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response structure, which are crucial for effective tool use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It mentions 'query' and 'variables' parameters, aligning with the schema, but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., that 'query' is a GraphQL query string, 'variables' is optional JSON). This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Query') and target ('a Sitecore GraphQL master endpoint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'query-graphql-web' or 'introspection-graphql-master', which appear to serve similar GraphQL query purposes but target different endpoints or provide introspection.
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 'query-graphql-web' or 'introspection-graphql-master'. The description only states what it does without context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions querying but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or mutative. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with a GraphQL endpoint.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, response format, error cases, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 0%, so the schema provides no param details. The description adds minimal semantics by naming 'query' and 'variables' as inputs, but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it compensates somewhat but not fully.
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 ('Query') and target ('a Sitecore GraphQL web endpoint'), specifying it's for web endpoints (not master). However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'query-graphql-master' beyond the endpoint type, missing explicit comparison.
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 like 'query-graphql-master' or other query tools in the sibling list. The description implies usage for GraphQL queries but lacks context on prerequisites, endpoint differences, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs a script and returns output, but lacks critical details: execution context (e.g., local vs. remote, permissions needed), error handling, timeout behavior, or security implications. This is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary code.
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—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of executing PowerShell scripts (potential for side effects, security risks) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or execution environment, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 the single parameter 'script' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as script format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter 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 the verb ('Runs') and resource ('a PowerShell script'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-powershell-documentation' or other execution tools, which would require specifying unique aspects like execution environment or script type.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., for item management, security, or other operations), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool 'adds' an ACL entry, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., propagation to descendants), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a security-related 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complexity of a security mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed, idempotency), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.
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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid ID formats or identity strings. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone.
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 ('Adds') and resource ('access control entry to a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'security-add-item-acl-by-path' by specifying 'by its ID', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ACL-related tools like 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' or 'security-clear-item-acl-by-id'.
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 sibling tools like 'security-add-item-acl-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' (which might replace rather than add ACL entries), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as required permissions or database context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'adds' an ACL entry, implying a mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual details needed for safe and effective use.
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 high at 86%, with detailed descriptions for most parameters, including enums and defaults. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds an access control entry') and target resource ('to a Sitecore item by its path'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-add-item-acl-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'security-add-item-acl-by-id' (which uses an ID instead of a path) or other security tools like 'security-set-item-acl-by-path'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an addition operation, implying mutation, but fails to describe critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., if the role or members don't exist), or the response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted 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?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a security context. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but does not compensate for other gaps.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('identity' and 'members') with examples. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 ('Adds') and resource ('a member to a Sitecore role'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-role-member' or 'security-get-role-member', which handle similar resources but with different operations, so it lacks explicit sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring existing roles or permissions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'security-new-role' for role creation or 'security-remove-role-member' for removal, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'clears all access rules,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects like affecting item functionality. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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?
Given the tool's destructive nature (clearing access rules), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical aspects like error handling, return values, or security implications, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.
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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clears all access rules') and resource ('from a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-clear-item-acl-by-id' which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 'security-clear-item-acl-by-id' or other security tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or database considerations, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Disables' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects user sessions immediately, or what happens to the user's data. For a security mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.
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 zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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 destructive security tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'disables' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would be left guessing about important behavioral aspects of this mutation.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'identity', and the tool description provides no additional parameter information. However, with only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 since the description doesn't add value but also doesn't need to compensate heavily for missing schema 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 the action ('Disables') and resource ('Sitecore user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-user' or 'security-unlock-user' which might have overlapping security functions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'security-remove-user' or 'security-unlock-user' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for disabling versus other user management actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if domain doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the return format looks like (since no output schema exists).
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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple retrieval 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., what happens on failure), return values, and usage guidelines. For a tool with one parameter but no structured support, more detail is needed.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'name' parameter is used to retrieve a domain by its name. However, it doesn't provide details on format, constraints, or examples. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, baseline 3 is appropriate as it clarifies the parameter's purpose minimally.
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 resource ('a Sitecore domain'), specifying it retrieves by name. It distinguishes from sibling 'security-get-domain' (which likely lists all domains) by focusing on retrieval by specific name, though it doesn't explicitly mention this 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 'security-get-domain' (which appears to be a general domain listing tool) or other domain-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it leaves critical operational details unspecified.
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 zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filter' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 resource ('Sitecore roles'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies retrieval by 'filter criteria,' which distinguishes it from direct ID-based lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-role-by-identity' or 'security-get-user-by-filter,' missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication needs or when filtering is preferred over direct identity lookups. It doesn't mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.
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 states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't specify permissions required, error handling, or return format. For a security-related tool, this lack of detail 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., role details, permissions), error conditions, or security implications, which are critical for a tool in the 'security' domain.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'identity' parameter with an example. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a Sitecore role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-role-by-filter' or 'security-get-role-member', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'security-get-role-by-filter' for broader searches or 'security-get-role-member' for role membership details, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get members') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of users/roles). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a role membership tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format (e.g., whether it returns a list, JSON structure), error conditions, or security implications. For a tool that likely returns structured data about users/roles, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (identity, recurse, userOnly, roleOnly). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how userOnly and roleOnly work together). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('members of a Sitecore role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from other security tools like 'security-get-role-by-identity' or 'security-get-user-by-identity' by focusing on role members. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-add-role-member' or 'security-remove-role-member' beyond the verb, which keeps it from 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the role identity), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying members), or related tools like 'security-add-role-member' for adding members. This lack of context leaves 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 states the tool locks an item but doesn't explain what locking entails (e.g., prevents edits, may require admin rights, or affects workflow). It mentions no side effects, error conditions, or typical outcomes, leaving significant gaps 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what locking does, error handling), usage context, or expected results, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool effectively in a security-sensitive operation.
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 clear descriptions for all parameters (id, force, passThru, database). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for adequate 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 ('Lock') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'security-lock-item-by-path' by specifying the ID-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other locking or security tools beyond the naming convention.
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. While the name implies it's for locking items by ID rather than path (as seen in sibling 'security-lock-item-by-path'), the description doesn't mention this distinction or any prerequisites, such as required permissions or typical use cases for locking items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lock a Sitecore item') but fails to describe key behavioral traits: what 'locking' entails (e.g., prevents edits, may require admin rights), the effect of the 'force' parameter (overriding other users' locks), or potential side effects (e.g., error if item doesn't exist). This leaves significant gaps 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a mutation tool (locking items) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens on success/failure, return format), usage context (e.g., permissions, alternatives), and error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all four parameters (path, force, passThru, database) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Lock') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'security-lock-item-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for potential confusion.
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 'security-lock-item-by-id' (which locks by ID instead of path) or other security tools like 'security-protect-item-by-path'. It also lacks information about prerequisites, like required permissions or item states, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates', implying a mutation, but does not cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a domain object). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error conditions, and how it fits within the broader security domain context, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
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 does not add any parameter details beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate with additional semantics but also does not detract.
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 ('Creates') and resource ('a new Sitecore domain'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-new-role' or 'security-new-user', which also create resources but for different types, so it lacks specific sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other domain-related tools like 'security-get-domain' or 'security-remove-domain'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states 'Creates' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects such as required permissions, whether the role is immediately active, potential side effects, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate roles). This leaves significant gaps 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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral transparency (permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the complexity of security operations, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'identity' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.
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 ('Creates') and the resource ('a new Sitecore role'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'security-new-domain' or 'security-new-user' that also create security entities, leaving room for improvement.
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 prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'security-get-role-by-identity' for verification, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'protect' implies a security/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose what 'protect' actually means in this context (e.g., what permissions are changed, whether it's reversible, what authentication is required, or potential side effects). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 security/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'protect' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites/constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('protect') and resource ('Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'security-protect-item-by-path' which performs the same function but uses a path instead of ID, missing an opportunity for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With sibling tools like 'security-protect-item-by-path' and 'security-unprotect-item-by-id' available, there's no indication of when ID-based protection is preferred over path-based or when to use unprotect instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without explaining what 'protect' entails (e.g., setting ACLs, preventing modifications), whether it's destructive, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions a 'passThru' parameter but doesn't clarify its behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 security mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'protect' means in Sitecore context, what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more detail is needed for safe invocation.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the 'path' is used for identification, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('protect') and resource ('a Sitecore item'), specifying it acts on items identified by path. It distinguishes from sibling 'security-protect-item-by-id' by the identification method (path vs ID), but doesn't explain what 'protect' means operationally beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'security-protect-item-by-id' or 'security-set-item-acl-by-path'. The description mentions the path parameter but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for protection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (implied by 'removes' but not explicit), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting users in the domain), or provides any response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as safety warnings, permission requirements, expected outcomes, or error handling. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior and implications, which is insufficient for reliable use.
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 adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'name' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value (e.g., explaining domain naming conventions or validation rules).
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 ('Removes') and the resource ('a Sitecore domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-role' or 'security-remove-user', but the domain specificity is clear enough for basic identification.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools (e.g., 'security-get-domain' for verification). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes a role, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated members or ACLs, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behavior explained, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action.
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 destructive security tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or error handling, nor does it explain the return value or confirmations. Given the complexity and risk of role removal, more context is needed.
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 the single parameter 'identity' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Removes') and the resource ('a Sitecore role'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-role-member' or 'security-remove-user', which also remove security-related entities in the same 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., role must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove built-in roles), or related tools like 'security-get-role-by-identity' for verification before removal.
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 states the action ('Removes') but does not mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on access controls), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 complexity (a mutation operation with security implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or output expectations, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('identity' and 'members') with examples. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format nuances or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
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 ('Removes') and the target ('members from a Sitecore role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-role' or 'security-remove-user', which handle different resources, leaving room for slight ambiguity in context.
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 'security-remove-role' for deleting roles or 'security-remove-user' for removing users entirely. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what permissions are needed to execute this, whether changes are reversible, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or how it interacts with existing ACLs. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the core functionality.
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 security mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's security implications, what 'setting' an ACL entry means (overwrite? merge?), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context to be 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?
Schema description coverage is 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide examples beyond what's in enum descriptions, or clarify edge cases. It meets the minimum viable baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.
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 ('Sets an access control entry') and target resource ('to a Sitecore item by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'security-set-item-acl-by-path' which performs the same function but uses a path instead of ID, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'security-set-item-acl-by-path' for path-based operations, nor does it explain when to use this versus 'security-add-item-acl-by-id' or other security tools. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions required, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation ('Sets'), implying mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a security tool with significant impact, this is a critical 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.
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 security mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the ACL, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or how to verify the change. Given the tool's potential impact, more context is needed.
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%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema 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 the action ('Sets') and target ('access control entry to a Sitecore item by its path'), which is specific and distinguishes it from non-security tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path.
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 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' (which uses item ID instead of path) or other ACL-related tools such as 'security-add-item-acl-by-path' or 'security-clear-item-acl-by-path'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states 'Updates properties,' implying a mutation, but doesn't specify critical behaviors like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects (e.g., password changes requiring confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a security-sensitive 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, error conditions), usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to handle this complex, security-related operation.
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 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.
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 ('Updates') and resource ('properties of a Sitecore user account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-set-user-password' or 'security-enable-user', which also modify user properties, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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 prerequisites, such as requiring admin permissions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'security-set-user-password' for password-only updates or 'security-enable-user' for enabling/disabling, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Sets'), implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are logged or reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid password policies), or response format. This is inadequate for a security-sensitive 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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded and sized for a straightforward 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., password history), error handling, or return values. Given the security sensitivity and potential for misuse, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance.
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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., identity format, password validation). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying password setting, which the schema already covers comprehensively. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('a new password for a Sitecore user'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'security-set-user' or 'security-unlock-user' that might also modify user properties, leaving room for ambiguity in a security-focused toolset.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for system accounts), or related tools like 'security-unlock-user' for locked accounts, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.
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 testing for existence and properties but doesn't specify what 'specific properties' entail (e.g., roles, permissions, status), whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, or error handling. For a security-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, security-related), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. While it meets a basic threshold, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding for an agent.
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 parameters ('identity' and 'accountType') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying testing involves 'specific properties,' which isn't explicitly linked to the parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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's purpose: 'Tests if a Sitecore user exists and has specific properties.' It specifies the verb ('Tests'), resource ('Sitecore user'), and scope ('exists and has specific properties'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-identity' or 'security-get-user-by-filter', which might retrieve user information without testing properties.
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 prerequisites, such as needing authentication or specific permissions, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-identity' (which retrieves user details) or 'security-test-item-acl-by-id' (which tests access control). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'unlocks' implies a state change operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, what 'unlocking' means in Sitecore context, whether this affects other users, or what happens on success/failure. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose and good schema documentation.
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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unlocking' means operationally, what permissions are required, what the return value contains, or how this differs from the path-based sibling. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 ('Unlocks') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'security-unlock-item-by-path' which performs the same function but uses a path parameter instead of ID.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when unlocking is appropriate, or how this differs from the path-based sibling tool. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action ('Unlocks') but fails to explain critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on workflow states), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps 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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an agent.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, effects), usage context, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all parameters (path, force, passThru, database). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the 'path' parameter, aligning with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Unlocks') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-unlock-item-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'security-unlock-item-by-id' (which unlocks by ID instead of path) or other security-related tools like 'security-lock-item-by-path'. It lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for unlocking items.
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 states the action ('Unprotect') but fails to explain what 'unprotect' entails (e.g., removing security restrictions, potential side effects, or required permissions). This leaves critical behavioral traits like mutation impact, authentication needs, or error handling unspecified, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Unprotect a Sitecore item by its ID'). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'unprotect' does, security implications), usage context, or return values. Given the tool's potential impact and the absence of structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation (id, passThru, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or contextual usage of parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Unprotect') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-unprotect-item-by-path', which performs the same action but uses a path instead of an ID, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'security-unprotect-item-by-path' for path-based operations or other security tools like 'security-protect-item-by-id'. It lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios, offering minimal usage direction.
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 states the action ('Unprotect') but does not explain what 'unprotect' entails (e.g., removing security restrictions, reverting to default permissions), potential side effects, required authentication, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 complexity (a mutation operation with security implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like what 'unprotect' means behaviorally, required permissions, potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate information for safe and effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (path, passThru, database). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for the database parameter or implications of passThru. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 ('Unprotect') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-unprotect-item-by-id', which performs the same function but uses an ID instead of a path, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling 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, such as 'security-unprotect-item-by-id' or other security-related tools like 'security-protect-item-by-path'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for unprotecting items, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'template information' includes (e.g., fields, structure). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, making it incomplete for more complex scenarios despite the straightforward nature of the tool.
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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('id' and 'database'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining ID formats or database context nuances. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('template information for a Sitecore item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-item-template-by-path' or 'common-get-item-clone-by-id', which also retrieve item-related information but focus on different aspects or parameters.
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'common-get-item-template-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or other template-related tools, 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive action ('Restarts') that could cause downtime or disruption, but doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, impact on users, expected duration, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a potentially disruptive 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to 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 potentially disruptive operation like restarting an application pool, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but impactful action, it should provide more context about behavioral implications, success indicators, or common use cases to help the agent use it appropriately.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully handles parameters.
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 ('Restarts') and the target resource ('the Sitecore Application pool'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives or similar tools, as the sibling list doesn't contain other application pool management tools, so differentiation isn't explicitly needed but could be more specific about 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or potential side effects. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios (e.g., after configuration changes, troubleshooting) or warnings, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 describes a read-only check operation ('checks'), implying no destructive effects, but does not address potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a check operation with 3 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on the return value (e.g., boolean result or error messages) and behavioral context, which are important for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (id, template, database). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the inheritance mechanism or template ID format. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Checks if the item inherits from the specified template by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('checks'), resource ('item'), and condition ('inherits from the specified template'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-test-base-template-by-path' beyond the 'by ID' distinction in the name. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'common-test-base-template-by-path' or other related tools like 'common-get-item-template-by-id', leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 that efficiently conveys the core function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 complexity (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the documentation output looks like (e.g., format, structure, or content), which is crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. This gap reduces its overall helpfulness.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose.
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 'Gets' and the resource 'documentation describing all Sitecore Powershell commands,' making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'sitecore-cli-documentation' or other documentation-related tools, which slightly limits its clarity in context.
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 'run-powershell-script' or other documentation tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this returns all languages or filtered ones, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Sitecore languages' means in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be truly helpful.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it appropriately avoids parameter discussion.
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 resource ('Sitecore languages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, but there are no obvious sibling tools for language retrieval in the provided list, so the lack of differentiation is acceptable.
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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant for language-related operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 retrieval but fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral aspects.
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 wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for its simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but omits details on usage, behavior, and output, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding in more complex scenarios.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining parameter interactions or use cases), resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('Sitecore logs from the log directory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings (e.g., other logging tools like 'get-logs-filtered' or 'stream-logs'), as no such siblings are listed in the context, but the description lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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, prerequisites, or context-specific considerations. It merely states what the tool does without indicating scenarios, limitations, or comparisons to other tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It's adequate for a simple read operation but lacks details on output format, error handling, or security context, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in a Sitecore environment.
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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, edge cases, or contextual usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('access control list (ACL) of a Sitecore item by its path'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'security-get-item-acl-by-id' which performs the same function using a different identifier, missing an opportunity for explicit sibling 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 'security-get-item-acl-by-id' or other ACL-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Tests' access rights, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors like error handling, performance, or authentication needs. For a security testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format. With schema coverage at 100%, the description meets a basic threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for parameter values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.
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's purpose: 'Tests whether a user or role has specific access rights to a Sitecore item by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Tests'), resource ('access rights to a Sitecore item'), and method ('by its ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-test-item-acl-by-path', which tests by path instead of ID, though this is implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the sibling tool 'security-test-item-acl-by-path' for testing by path, nor does it explain prerequisites like required permissions or database context. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Gets' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Gets Sitecore CLI documentation') and adds useful examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit differentiation from the PowerShell documentation sibling.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what documentation is retrieved but lacks details about the return format, which is important since there's no output schema. For a read-only tool with no structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents the empty input structure.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('Sitecore CLI documentation'), and provides examples of content ('most often used commands like index rebuild, item serialization, etc.'). It distinguishes from most siblings which perform operations on Sitecore items, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-powershell-documentation' which serves a similar documentation-retrieval purpose.
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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to 'get-powershell-documentation' (the only sibling with similar documentation-retrieval function). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets list' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how the list is formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'current Sitecore jobs' entails (e.g., running, queued), the return format, or behavioral aspects like safety. With no annotations, it should provide more context for a read operation in a complex system.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('list of the current Sitecore jobs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-cache' or 'common-get-database', which also retrieve lists of different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for monitoring jobs or if other tools handle job creation/management. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Prints the configuration,' implying a read-only operation that outputs data, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as format of output (e.g., JSON, text), potential side effects (e.g., if it logs or caches), authentication requirements, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate by stating what it does. However, it lacks completeness in explaining the output format or behavioral context, which is important for a tool that 'prints' configuration without further details. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 ('Prints') and resource ('configuration of the Sitecore MCP server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which primarily involve item manipulation, security, indexing, etc., though its unique focus on server configuration is implied by the name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given the extensive list of sibling tools for various Sitecore operations (e.g., item management, security, logging), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'logging-get-logs' or 'common-get-cache' that might also provide system information.
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 mentions 'Rebuilds the index,' implying a potentially destructive or resource-intensive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, impact on system performance, whether it's asynchronous, or what happens on failure. The wildcard filtering note adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details (wildcard filtering). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that 'id' is for the root item and 'indexName' supports wildcard filtering, which clarifies the purpose beyond the schema's basic descriptions. It doesn't cover 'path' (which has no schema description), but overall compensates well for the partial 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 ('Rebuilds the index') and target resource ('for a given tree with the specified root item by id and index name'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'indexing-initialize-search-index-item-by-path' (which likely uses a path instead of an ID), though the distinction is 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 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 (e.g., 'indexing-initialize-search-index' or 'indexing-initialize-search-index-item-by-path'), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. Usage is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.
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 states the action ('Clears all access rules') but does not mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on item security), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.
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 specific action ('Clears all access rules') and resource ('from a Sitecore item by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'security-add-item-acl-by-id' or 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' which modify rather than clear ACLs. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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 'security-clear-item-acl-by-path' (a sibling tool) or other ACL management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, potential errors, or what 'current' means in context (e.g., session-based). This leaves gaps for an AI 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on authentication, return format, or error handling. Given the complexity is low, it's complete enough to be functional but not richly informative.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 resource ('current Sitecore user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-filter' or 'security-get-user-by-identity', which could retrieve users by other criteria.
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 that this retrieves the currently authenticated user context, nor does it contrast with sibling tools that fetch users by ID, filter, or other attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the domains are returned in. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
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 read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'domains' means in Sitecore context, what format they're returned in, or whether this requires specific permissions. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed ('Get all...') without adding unnecessary parameter information.
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 resource ('all Sitecore domains'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'security-get-domain-by-name', which appears to retrieve a specific domain rather than all 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 alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'security-get-domain-by-name' for retrieving specific domains, nor any context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned ACL data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavior, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional inference.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or additional context. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Gets'), the resource ('access control list (ACL) of a Sitecore item'), and the method ('by its ID'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'security-get-item-acl-by-path' that use a path instead of an ID.
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 'security-get-item-acl-by-path' for path-based retrieval or other ACL-related tools like 'security-test-item-acl-by-id'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool unlocks accounts but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's reversible, side effects (e.g., resetting failed login counters), or error conditions. This is a mutation tool with significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, and response format, which are critical for safe and effective use.
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 the parameter 'identity' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Unlocks') and resource ('a Sitecore user account'), including the reason for unlocking ('locked out due to failed login attempts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security-disable-user' or 'security-enable-user' by focusing on unlocking after failed logins.
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 when a user account is locked from failed logins, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'security-enable-user' for general enabling or 'security-unlock-item-by-id' for unlocking items. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a removal operation (destructive) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to related data, or any rate limits. The mention of wildcard filtering adds some context but overall behavioral 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful detail about wildcard support. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete in stating what it does and a key parameter feature. However, it lacks details about the mutation's impact, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding the full context of use.
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% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by mentioning wildcard filtering for 'indexName', which isn't in the schema's description, but doesn't provide additional meaning for 'id' or 'path' beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Removes') and target resource ('the item with the specified ID from the search index'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'indexing-remove-search-index-item-by-path' which uses a path parameter instead of ID. It also mentions the unique capability of wildcard filtering for index names.
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 specifying it removes items by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the path-based sibling tool or other indexing tools. It mentions wildcard filtering for index names, which provides some contextual guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Tests' access rights, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of the test result. For a security testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear terminology, making it easy to understand at a glance while being appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, security-related), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, result interpretation, or error handling. While it meets the minimum for a read-oriented tool, it does not fully address the contextual needs for secure operations.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Tests'), resource ('access rights to a Sitecore item'), and scope ('by its path'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security-test-item-acl-by-id' by specifying the path-based approach, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.
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 context by mentioning testing access rights for a user/role on a Sitecore item, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'security-test-item-acl-by-id' for ID-based testing) or any prerequisites. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit comparative or exclusionary advice.
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 mentions the tool resumes indexes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires admin permissions, if it's a destructive operation that might affect ongoing processes, expected runtime, or error handling. For a mutation tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the main purpose and efficiently explaining parameter implications. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying tool behavior without 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation operation with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return values, which are important for safe invocation.
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 the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the schema's information about the optional name parameter and default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('resume') and resource ('Sitecore search indexes'), and distinguishes behavior based on parameter presence ('If no name is provided, all paused indexes will be resumed'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'indexing-stop-search-index' and 'indexing-suspend-search-index' by focusing on resuming rather than stopping or suspending.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: to resume paused search indexes, with an optional name parameter for targeted resumption. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'indexing-initialize-search-index' for initial setup, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'suspend' (implying a temporary pause rather than permanent deletion), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if suspended indexes can be resumed, what happens to in-progress operations, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 waste. The first states the core purpose, the second clarifies the parameter's default behavior. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter behavior, but lacks crucial context about permissions, reversibility, side effects, and what constitutes a 'running' index. Given the complexity of index management, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats the parameter's behavior ('If no name is provided, all running indexes will be suspended') but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Suspend') and resource ('Sitecore search indexes'), with precise scope ('one or more'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'indexing-stop-search-index' by specifying suspension rather than stopping, and from 'indexing-resume-search-index' as its opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage: 'If no name is provided, all running indexes will be suspended.' This gives explicit guidance on the default behavior. However, it doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'indexing-stop-search-index' or prerequisites for suspension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function (introspection) and timing (before queries), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that immediately states what the tool does and when to use it. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure flows logically from function to usage context.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (introspection operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe what the schema information looks like, how it's returned, or any limitations. For a schema introspection tool, more detail about the output format would be helpful despite the lack of output schema.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. However, it could have mentioned that no parameters are required, which would be helpful context. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description adequately addresses the parameter-free nature through its functional explanation.
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's purpose: 'Introspection Sitecore GraphQL master schema' and 'use this tool before doing a query to get the schema information'. It specifies the verb ('introspection'), resource ('Sitecore GraphQL master schema'), and context ('before doing a query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'introspection-graphql-web', though the 'master' vs 'web' distinction is implied.
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 clear usage context: 'use this tool before doing a query to get the schema information if you do not have it available as a resource already'. This gives explicit guidance on when to use it (before queries when schema info is unavailable). However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly compare with the 'introspection-graphql-web' sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function (introspection to get schema information) and context (before queries). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the schema information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Introspection Sitecore GraphQL web schema') followed by the usage guideline. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (introspection operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects (safety, authentication, return format) or differentiate from siblings. For a tool that presumably returns schema information, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what to expect, but it doesn't.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context without redundant parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description is otherwise adequate.
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's purpose: 'Introspection Sitecore GraphQL web schema' (verb+resource). It specifies that it 'get[s] the schema information' for GraphQL queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'introspection-graphql-master' or other query tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific web schema introspection versus alternatives.
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 clear context for usage: 'use this tool before doing a query to get the schema information if you do not have it available as a resource already.' This gives a specific when-to-use scenario (pre-query when schema is unknown). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like the sibling 'introspection-graphql-master'), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior regarding parameter handling (optional name parameter with default behavior) but doesn't mention important aspects like whether stopping is reversible, if it requires admin permissions, what happens to in-progress operations, or any rate limits.
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 waste - the first states the core purpose, the second explains parameter behavior. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information first.
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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic functionality and parameter behavior but lacks critical information about side effects, permissions required, reversibility, and expected response format.
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 description adds meaningful context about the parameter's effect ('If no name is provided, all running indexes will be stopped'), which complements the schema's 100% coverage. This clarifies the default behavior when the parameter is omitted, going beyond the schema's basic 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 specific action ('Stop') and resource ('Sitecore search indexes'), with precise scope ('one or more'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'indexing-suspend-search-index' by specifying a stop action rather than suspension.
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 clear context for when to use it (stopping indexes) and includes a conditional rule (if no name provided, stops all running indexes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'indexing-suspend-search-index' for temporary pauses.
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:

[![mcp-sitecore-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ramseur/mcp-sitecore-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ramseur/mcp-sitecore-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sitecore-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ramseur/mcp-sitecore-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ramseur/mcp-sitecore-server)

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/ramseur/mcp-sitecore-server'

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