Prowlarr MCP server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those basics. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the endpoint; it does not describe side effects, validation behavior, or what happens on save, which would have added value beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose and endpoint. The Args list is minimal, though 'force_save: Query parameter' adds little value beyond the schema and the 'Create Application' line is slightly redundant with the endpoint.

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

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

With an open body object and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description does not fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly. It wisely directs the agent to GET/schema endpoints for body fields, but it leaves force_save semantics unexplained and offers no alternative-selection guidance.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining the parameters. It does describe 'body' as the request payload and points to GET/schema for field details, but 'force_save' is only labeled 'Query parameter' with no explanation of its effect, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Create Application' and gives the exact HTTP endpoint, so an agent can tell it is the create operation for the applications resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_applications_action_by_name or create_applications_test, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

The description gives useful procedural guidance ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the name and endpoint rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds some useful context by exposing the HTTP endpoint and instructing agents to consult GET or /schema for expected fields, which helps with dynamic payload discovery. However, it does not clarify what the 'action' actually does or what side effects result.

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

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

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and an args breakdown. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the schema. It is too sparse, but the conciseness itself is appropriate for the limited information provided.

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

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

Despite having only two parameters and an output schema, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It fails to explain the action-by-name concept, the role of the name parameter, or how this operation relates to the broader applications API. The external reference to GET/schema is helpful but does not compensate for the missing semantic context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It states that name is a path parameter and body is a request payload, but it does not explain what name refers to or what the action does. Pointing to GET or /schema helps for body discovery, but the meaning of the key name parameter remains unexplained.

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

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

The description says 'Create Application,' which states a verb and resource, but it omits the critical 'action/{name}' semantics from the tool and path. This makes it ambiguous whether it creates an application or executes/creates an action on an application, and it does not distinguish it from sibling create_applications.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_applications or other create_*_action_by_name tools. The only advice is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a prerequisite for building the payload, not a tool-selection guideline.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not disclose whether this endpoint persists a real application or merely validates the payload, which is the key behavioral ambiguity of a '/test' endpoint. It also doesn't explain the meaning of 'force_test' behaviorally.

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

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

The description is compact with the core action front-loaded; the endpoint and args follow in a scannable format. No filler or repetition. However, the brevity leaves room for a sentence clarifying the test semantics that would have made better use of the available space.

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

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

With 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and a meaningful sibling distinction, the description is under-specified. The missing clarification of what 'test' does, whether the operation persists, and when force_test should be set, leaves an agent uncertain about the outcome of invoking this endpoint. The pointer to GET/schema endpoints helps but does not fill the main gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides genuinely useful guidance for 'body' (read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn expected fields), which compensates for the opaque additionalProperties:true schema. However, 'force_test' is only labeled 'Query parameter,' adding no meaning beyond the schema's boolean/null type. Compensation is partial at best.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create Application') and provides the HTTP endpoint, so an agent can tell this performs creation of an application resource. It is not a tautology of the tool name. However, it does not differentiate this 'test' variant from the sibling create_applications, leaving ambiguity about what makes the /test endpoint distinct.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_applications, create_applications_testall, or create_applications_action_by_name. The name suggests a test variant, but the description never states when the test endpoint is appropriate or when the regular create should be used instead. An agent gets no decision support for choosing among the create-application siblings.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotency and non-destructive hints, so the description's burden is lower. However, the description adds no meaningful behavioral detail beyond the endpoint: it fails to say that this tests all configured applications and does not create a persistent application. The phrase "Create Application" is behaviorally inaccurate for a testall endpoint.

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

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

The description is very short and contains the endpoint, so structure is simple and front-loaded. However, brevity is not valuable when the main content "Create Application" is misleading and the endpoint alone does not explain the operation. Every sentence should add correct value, and this one fails to do so.

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

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

With zero parameters and an output schema, the required context is small, but the essential fact—that this is a test-all operation—is missing. An agent cannot correctly decide to call this tool versus the sibling create_applications_test or create_applications based on this description.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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

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

The description says "Create Application," but the endpoint and the sibling tool names (create_applications_test, create_applications_testall) indicate this is actually a test-all operation, not an application creation. The verb is misleading and does not distinguish this tool from create_applications or create_applications_test.

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

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the "test all applications" variant or contrast it with create_applications_test or create_applications. The misleading "Create Application" description actively sends an agent toward the wrong use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core behavioral profile. The description adds no details beyond 'Create' and the endpoint; it does not mention duplicate handling, error responses, or side effects. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: a two-line purpose and endpoint, plus a short Args note. It front-loads the core action and provides the key preparation instruction without any superfluous content.

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

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

The description covers the purpose and directs the agent to external schema for body fields, which is a reasonable strategy. However, it omits details on required vs optional fields, validation rules, and common failure modes. An output schema exists, so return format is presumably covered, but the description remains somewhat thin for a create operation with an open body.

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

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

The schema defines only an open 'body' object with additionalProperties, providing no field information. The description compensates by instructing the agent to consult the GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields, which is essential for constructing a valid payload. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (Create) and the target resource (AppProfile), and even provides the exact HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v1/appprofile). This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from other create_* tools by the resource name.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_appprofile_by_id or list_appprofile. It does instruct the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is preparation guidance, but it does not address selection criteria among sibling create tools.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already reveal this is a non-destructive write that is safe to retry. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the word 'Create' and the pointer to the schema endpoint — it never mentions idempotency, what happens on success, or side effects. No contradiction, but the description carries little weight beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is compact — verb, endpoint, one parameter, and a lookup instruction — with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. Slightly more could be said about the resource, but the structure is efficient.

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

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

Given the output schema exists (so return values need no explanation) and annotations carry the safety/idempotency profile, the description covers the essentials: the endpoint, the single argument, and where to find field definitions. The main gap is not explaining the nature of the Command resource, but for an open-bodied create tool the scaffolding fills most needs.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the body param is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties:true — useless on its own. The description compensates by naming the parameter ('body: Request payload') and directing the agent to the GET/schema endpoints to discover the expected fields. This is effective guidance for an open-ended payload, though it delegates rather than enumerates the fields.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Create Command') paired with the explicit endpoint 'POST /api/v1/command'. Among the many sibling create_* tools (create_applications, create_indexer, etc.), naming the 'Command' resource differentiates it, though it never explains what a Command is or what creating one accomplishes.

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

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

The only usage guidance is a prerequisite hint — 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as list_command or get_command_by_id. An agent gets a hint about preparation but nothing about selection or sequencing.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds the HTTP method and payload expectation, but does not disclose response behavior, authentication needs, or duplicate-creation semantics; those are not required given the annotations.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, required parameter, and a discovery instruction. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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

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

For an open-schema create operation, the description is sufficient: it provides the endpoint, identifies the required body parameter, and gives a concrete mechanism for discovering valid fields. Return-value details are unnecessary because an output schema exists; it could be slightly stronger by naming the exact matching GET tool.

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

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

The input schema only defines body as an open object with no field-level documentation, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by identifying body as the request payload and, more importantly, directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields.

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

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

States the action 'Create' and target resource 'CustomFilter' and reinforces it with the explicit endpoint POST /api/v1/customfilter. This clearly distinguishes the tool from update_customfilter_by_id, delete_customfilter_by_id, and list_customfilter.

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

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

The description makes the use case clear by saying 'Create', and it gives a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before composing the body. It does not explicitly say to use update_customfilter_by_id for existing filters, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint: it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, error behavior, or response semantics. Even with annotations, it contributes almost nothing to behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. The endpoint and parameter labels are laid out in a simple, scannable format. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices content for brevity.

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

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

Although output schema exists, the tool accepts a largely unconstrained nested body with 0% schema coverage, so the description needs to guide the agent more thoroughly. It points to the GET/schema endpoint, which is useful, but fails to explain force_save semantics, typical usage, or how this create operation relates to sibling create-test/action tools. The definition is incomplete for a complex resource creation tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the unstructured schema. It only labels body as 'Request payload' and force_save as 'Query parameter', which does not explain their actual meaning, format, or required fields. The pointer to GET/schema is helpful, but it is a workaround rather than real parameter semantics.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create DownloadClient') and includes the REST endpoint, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like create_downloadclient_action_by_name or create_downloadclient_test, but the core purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what it does.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only hints that the matching GET or /schema endpoint should be read first, which is a prerequisite rather than usage selection guidance. No mention of when to use create vs. update vs. action_by_name is provided.

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

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

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the POST endpoint and a hint to look up the schema; it does not disclose side effects, whether this triggers an action rather than a plain create, or any behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded. It gives the endpoint, then the two arguments, then a useful lookup hint. There is no filler, though the minimalism contributes to the lack of semantic detail.

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

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

For a POST/create tool with 0% schema coverage and many sibling create variants, the description is incomplete. It never explains what 'action' means, whether this creates a download client or triggers an action, or why an agent should choose this over create_downloadclient. The output schema does not compensate for these selection and behavior gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only restates name as a path parameter and body as a payload. It does not say what 'name' refers to or what fields the body should contain, although pointing to the GET/schema endpoint is a small helpful gesture.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create DownloadClient') and gives the HTTP endpoint. However, the endpoint path includes '/action/{name}', which is not explained, and the tool name is not differentiated from the closely related sibling create_downloadclient. An agent cannot tell what 'action' means or how this creation differs from the plain create.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus create_downloadclient, create_downloadclient_test, or other create_* siblings. The advice to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first is useful for constructing the body, but it does not help with tool selection or prerequisites.

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

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. It discloses the endpoint and argument labels but not what the test does, whether it persists anything, what a successful or failed test means, or what force_test affects.

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

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

The description is short and reasonably front-loaded, but the first sentence is low-value and the argument list is skeletal. It is concise, yet the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, for a test action with a nested body and minimal annotations, the description still lacks behavioral detail, force_test semantics, and differentiation from sibling test/testall tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. It usefully tells the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for body fields, but force_test is only described as 'Query parameter' with no added meaning.

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

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

The opening line 'Create DownloadClient.' restates the create_* test name without conveying the test semantics shown by the endpoint '/test'. It does not distinguish this tool from create_downloadclient or create_downloadclient_testall, so an agent cannot tell whether it creates a client, tests one, or tests all.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only actionable instruction, to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, helps with body discovery but not with tool selection or usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral detail: it does not say that this tests all download clients, whether it requires existing clients, or what side effects (if any) occur besides the read=false designation.

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

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

The description is very short and includes the endpoint, which is useful. However, 'Create DownloadClient.' is redundant with the tool name and misleading for a testall operation, so one of the two sentences does not earn its place.

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

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

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, but the description still fails to clarify the core operation. An agent cannot confidently decide whether to call this tool because 'Create DownloadClient' conflicts with the 'testall' endpoint and no context about testing behavior or alternatives is supplied.

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

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

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4.

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

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

The description says 'Create DownloadClient' and includes a POST endpoint, but the actual tool is `create_downloadclient_testall`. It never mentions the 'testall' semantics, so an agent cannot tell this apart from the sibling `create_downloadclient` or understand that this likely triggers testing rather than creation. The wording is tautological and potentially misleading.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `create_downloadclient_test` or `create_downloadclient`. The endpoint is stated, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds virtually nothing beyond the raw endpoint and one metadata pointer; it does not explain what force_save does, what side effects creation has, or any auth/requirements. For a mutation tool with an open body, this is thin.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. Minor waste exists: 'Args: force_save: Query parameter' adds no value over the schema, and the body line could be tighter. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The body is adequately handled via the schema-endpoint pointer. The main gap is force_save, which has no meaningful explanation despite being a nullable boolean query parameter with likely behavioral impact. For a 2-param tool this is adequate but not complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. For 'body' it does add practical value by directing the agent to the schema endpoint for field discovery, which is essential given additionalProperties:true. But 'force_save' is described only as 'Query parameter'—a bare restatement of the schema with zero semantic meaning, and it does not flag that the schema already shows it is nullable/boolean.

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

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

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Create Indexer') plus the full endpoint. It is unambiguous about what is being created. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like create_indexerproxy, create_indexer_test, or create_indexer_action_by_name, which an agent might confuse it with aiming for the same create path.

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

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

It instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to discover expected body fields, which is practical for an open-ended body object (additionalProperties: true). But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling create_* tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context about the endpoint and instructs the agent to inspect the schema before sending a body, but it does not disclose effects beyond creating an indexer, auth requirements, or response behavior.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, gives the endpoint, and then lists the two arguments with a clear instruction for handling the payload. Every line earns its place.

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

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

For a 2-parameter creation endpoint with an output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essentials: endpoint, parameter roles, and how to discover the body shape. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the difference from sibling indexer creation tools, but the core invocation context is present.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It identifies name as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and it tells the agent to fetch the matching GET or schema endpoint to learn the body's expected fields. This is meaningful guidance for an open/opaque body object.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the action as 'Create Indexer' and gives the exact REST endpoint, so an agent knows the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what distinguishes this from the sibling create_indexer tool or what 'action_by_name' means.

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

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

The description implies usage by showing the POST endpoint and stating that a payload is required. It gives the useful prerequisite to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_indexer.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as side effects, auth requirements, or retry behavior. It is neutral and does not 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.

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. It states the action, the endpoint, and the two parameters in a compact list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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

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

For a create operation with a complex nested body and an output schema, the description provides a complete strategy: consult the schema endpoint for the body fields. The force_save parameter is left unexplained, but it is optional and defaults to null, so the gap is minor. Overall, an agent has enough guidance to invoke this correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that body is the request payload and directs the agent to the GET or /schema endpoint for its fields. However, force_save is only labeled as a query parameter with no explanation of its meaning or effect, leaving part of the parameter semantics unresolved.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create IndexerProxy.' It also includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/v1/indexerproxy, which makes the action unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_indexerproxy_test or create_indexerproxy_action_by_name, but the name and basic action are clear enough.

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

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

The description gives a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint to learn the expected body fields. This tells the agent how to prepare the call. It doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over its test/testall siblings, but the core usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a POST action and that the body expects fields matching a GET or the /schema endpoint, but it does not disclose side effects, required configuration state, or response behavior. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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

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

The description is short and structured: one title line, the endpoint, and an Args block. It front-loads the essential action and endpoint. It could be tighter by removing the redundant 'Args:' line, but overall it is efficient.

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

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

Given that the body is a free-form object with no schema details, the guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is important, but the description lacks information about what the action actually performs, what a successful response contains, or any special behavior. This is adequate but not complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema itself defines name as a string and body as a free-form object with additionalProperties true. The description adds minimal semantics: name is a path parameter and body is the request payload that should be read from a matching GET or /schema. This is helpful but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

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

The description 'Create IndexerProxy' states a verb and a resource, so it is clear enough at a high level, but it does not distinguish this action-by-name variant from the sibling create_indexerproxy, which also creates IndexerProxy. The endpoint path is shown, but the agent must infer that this is the action variant that takes a name path parameter.

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

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

The description says 'POST /api/v1/indexerproxy/action/{name}' and 'Args:', which implies usage, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_indexerproxy, create_indexerproxy_test, or create_indexerproxy_testall. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-readOnly. The description adds nothing about the test semantics, whether a resource is actually created, or what 'force_test' does behaviorally. It only echoes the endpoint and refers to schema, leaving the agent to infer critical behavior.

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

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

The description is concise and structured (endpoint, args) with no fluff. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance; it is efficient but fails to deliver meaningful content.

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

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

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It omits the test-vs-create distinction, the purpose of 'force_test', and any differentiation from the large set of sibling create tools, leaving an agent likely to misuse it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'body' and says to read the GET or /schema endpoint to know fields – a useful pointer but not an explanation. 'force_test' is merely labeled as a query parameter with zero semantics. This barely meets the minimum for parameter understanding.

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

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

The description states 'Create IndexerProxy.' but the tool name 'create_indexerproxy_test' and endpoint '/test' imply a test operation, not a straightforward create. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'create_indexerproxy' or clarify what 'test' means (e.g., validate without persisting). The verb+resource is vague and ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_indexerproxy, create_indexerproxy_testall, or the action-by-name variants. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotency and destructive/safety hints, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a POST route. It does not say whether this runs tests against all configured proxies, creates a proxy, or what side effects/results occur. It therefore does not go beyond the structured hints.

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

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

The description is short, but brevity replaces content: 'Create IndexerProxy.' merely repeats the tool name, and only the endpoint line provides any non-redundant information. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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

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

Even though the tool is parameterless and has an output schema plus annotations, the description leaves the core behavior ambiguous. An agent cannot determine what 'testall' does, whether it creates a proxy or tests existing ones, or how to distinguish it from closely named siblings.

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

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

The input schema has zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema fields.

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

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

The description is just 'Create IndexerProxy.' followed by the endpoint, which restates part of the tool name without explaining the 'testall' suffix. The endpoint POST /api/v1/indexerproxy/testall suggests a test-all action rather than a resource creation, making the stated purpose misleading and indistinguishable from create_indexerproxy.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs create_indexerproxy, create_indexerproxy_test, or any sibling. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already convey that this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only that this is a POST endpoint and that body fields are discoverable via GET/schema, which is modest context. It does not disclose side effects, retry semantics, or what the 'test' behavior entails.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action, and the GET/schema pointer is useful. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, omitting key clarification about the test endpoint and the force_test parameter.

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

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

For a create endpoint with 0% schema description coverage and an unexplained query parameter, this description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. The pointer to GET/schema helps for body construction, but the missing distinction from sibling tools and the unexplained force_test parameter leave significant gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it largely does not. 'body' is only described as a payload with a pointer to GET/schema, which is helpful but generic, and 'force_test' is merely labeled a query parameter without any explanation of its meaning or effect.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource, 'Create Indexer,' but drops the '_test' distinction that is central to the tool name. The endpoint path '/api/v1/indexer/test' hints at a test variant, yet the description does not explain what the test operation actually does or how it differs from create_indexer.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_indexer or create_indexer_testall. The note to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is useful for preparing the body, but it does not help an agent choose among related tools or understand prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. However, the description adds no context about what 'testall' actually does, what side effects occur, or what an agent should expect after invocation.

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

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

The description is short, but the opening phrase 'Create Indexer' is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness and likely restates a misleading intent. The endpoint line is useful, but the overall content does not earn its place.

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

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

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, the basic mechanics are simple, but the semantic context is missing. An agent cannot determine that this is the test-all-indexers operation or how it relates to create_indexer_test.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so it cannot be penalized for missing parameter guidance.

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

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

The description says only 'Create Indexer,' which omits the 'testall' action and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_indexer or create_indexer_test. Given the endpoint POST /api/v1/indexer/testall, the stated purpose is misleading rather than clarifying.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or why it is preferable to create_indexer, create_indexer_test, or create_indexer_action_by_name. The description implies a creation workflow that the endpoint does not support.

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

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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not disclose whether an existing session is replaced, whether credentials are required in the body, or what side effects (e.g., issuing an authentication token) occur.

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

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

The description is compact and logically structured: a one-line summary, the endpoint, then argument descriptions. It contains no filler, though the brevity is achieved by leaving important behavioral and usage context out.

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

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

For a login/authentication tool, the description omits the most important context: what the agent should do with the result, whether authentication is required for subsequent calls, and how this relates to the logout/login sibling tools. Output schema existence covers return values, but the missing operational context makes the tool hard to use correctly in a broader workflow.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that body is a request payload whose expected fields must be discovered from the matching GET or /schema endpoint. return_url, however, is only called a 'Query parameter', which adds location but not its meaning or purpose.

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

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

The description opens with 'Create Authentication.' and gives the endpoint 'POST /login', which identifies the operation as creating an authentication/login resource. However, it never explains what 'authentication' means in practice (e.g., logging in, receiving a session/token), so the purpose remains somewhat vague and weakly differentiated from the abstract create_* pattern 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.

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

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives like list_login or list_logout. The only guidance is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying the body, which is parameter preparation rather than usage context for choosing the tool.

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

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with those. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the instruction to inspect the schema first, which is useful context, but it does not explain what force_save does or reveal any side effects beyond what annotations already convey.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement, the endpoint, then a short args list. The body guidance is written directly under the parameter it documents. Minor redundancy exists ('Create Notification' followed by the POST line), but nothing is wasted.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description adequately directs the agent to the schema endpoint for the open-world body, but force_save's behavior is unexplained and no error/validation context is given. For an open-world nested body tool, it is adequate but not rich.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It gives genuinely useful guidance for body ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects') since the body is an open additionalProperties object. However, force_save is only described as 'Query parameter', which merely restates the schema and adds no semantic value.

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

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

The description states the verb (Create), resource (Notification), and the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v1/notification), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from update_notification_by_id, delete_notification_by_id, and list_notification by name and method, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the create_notification_test and create_notification_testall siblings.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_notification_test or update_notification_by_id. The only context clue is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first', which is a prerequisite for constructing the body rather than a when-to-use directive, so the selection context is effectively absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic 'Create' – it doesn't mention idempotency implications, auth requirements, side effects, or that creating an action might require an existing notification. With annotations present, the description carries a lower burden but still adds minimal value.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the HTTP verb and endpoint. It includes the parameter list in a clear format. Every line earns its place, though it could be more informative without bloating.

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

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

Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the tool is a creation action with nested objects and a low schema coverage. The description fails to explain what an 'action' is, whether any prerequisites exist (e.g., an existing notification), or what happens if the name already exists. Relying solely on 'read the schema' is a thin safety net, especially for a mutating operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only labels 'name' as a path parameter and 'body' as the request payload. It tells the agent to read the GET or /schema endpoint for field details, which is a pointer but not actual semantics. This does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent uncertain about the body structure or the meaning of 'name' beyond it being a path parameter.

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

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

The description states 'Create Notification' and the endpoint '/api/v1/notification/action/{name}', which indicates the tool creates a notification action, not just a notification. However, it is ambiguous whether this is the general create or a specialized action create. The name 'create_notification_action_by_name' clarifies it, but the description itself is vague and doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'create_notification'.

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

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

The description advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before using, which is a useful precondition hint. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like create_notification or update_notification_by_id, nor when to avoid it. The absence of any exclusion criteria or alternative selection criteria leaves 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.

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

The annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context such as 'sends a test notification' or what force_test actually affects. It only restates the POST endpoint and gives a schema-discovery hint, so there is little transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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

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

The description is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the opening line 'Create Notification.' largely restates the tool name and does not earn its place. The Args section is structured but minimal, making the description under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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

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

Even with annotations and an output schema, an agent cannot tell what a 'test' call does, when to choose it over create_notification_testall, or how force_test should be set. The description outsources body shape to another endpoint and leaves the core test semantics ambiguous.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies body as the request payload and force_test as a query parameter, but it does not explain what force_test does or what body structure is expected. This provides only marginal help over the raw schema.

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

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

The description gives a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('Notification') and exposes the endpoint POST /api/v1/notification/test. However, it does not state that this is specifically the 'test' variant, so an agent cannot distinguish it from create_notification or create_notification_testall based on the prose alone.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of create_notification, create_notification_testall, or other sibling test endpoints. The only advice, to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before filling the body, is about parameter discovery rather than tool selection.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is minor context. It does not describe side effects, return behavior, or what 'testall' does, but annotations carry the main burden.

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

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

The description is extremely short, which is efficient, but it repeats the tool name ('Create Notification') and only adds the endpoint. It is not misleading, but it does not earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the name and schema.

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

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

For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description could be minimal, but the tool name and siblings suggest this is a test-all action. The description does not clarify what the tool does, what it returns, or when it should be used. Given the ambiguity, it is incomplete.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, so nothing is missing. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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

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

The description says 'Create Notification' and gives the endpoint, but the tool name is create_notification_testall, which suggests a test-all action rather than a general create. It does not state what 'testall' means or how it differs from create_notification or create_notification_test. The verb+resource is present but the scope is ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_notification, create_notification_test, or create_notification_action_by_name. The endpoint path hints at a test-all operation, but the description does not explain the intended use case or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the precondition to consult GET/schema first, which is contextual value, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: a purpose statement, the concrete endpoint, and an argument note. Every line contributes actionable information without filler or redundancy.

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

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

For a one-parameter create call with an output schema and helpful annotations, the description supplies the endpoint and a clear path to discovering the body structure. The main gaps are not explaining how this differs from create_search_bulk and not describing expected response behavior, though the output schema helps fill part of that.

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

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

The single body parameter has no schema documentation and is additionalProperties, yet the description identifies it as the request payload and directs the agent to the authoritative GET/schema endpoint for field details. This meaningfully compensates for the opaque schema.

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

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

The description states a clear create operation on a search resource and provides the endpoint POST /api/v1/search. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling create_search_bulk, so purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description gives a useful precondition: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying a body. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_search_bulk, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not add behavioral context. It does not describe what happens on creation, the response format, or any side effects. The only extra note is about reading the schema first, which is more of a usage hint than a behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose ('Create Search'), followed by the endpoint URL and a concise parameter note. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly longer to clarify the bulk nature, but as written it is efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (one opaque parameter and a 'bulk' name that is unexplained), the description is incomplete. It does not mention that this is a bulk operation, does not clarify how it differs from create_search, and relies entirely on the schema endpoint for payload details. The output schema is present, so return values are covered, but the operational context is lacking.

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

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

The schema has a single 'body' parameter with additionalProperties:true and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields. This is a practical workaround for the opaque parameter, though it does not provide any direct semantic detail about the parameter itself.

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

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

The description states 'Create Search.' which clearly identifies the verb and resource—creating a search object. However, it does not mention the 'bulk' aspect implied by the tool name, nor does it differentiate from the sibling tool create_search. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what makes this tool distinct.

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

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

The description instructs the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This is a useful prerequisite but does not address when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_search, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions. There is no guidance on when a bulk create is appropriate.

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

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

The annotations already signal a non-read-only, idempotent operation, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the system when a restore is triggered. The mention of POST and the path is routing information, not behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is compact and well-structured, presenting the endpoint and parameter in separate sections with no excessive wording. The 'Create Backup' line is wasteful and inaccurate, but overall the format is clean and readable. It earns a high score for structure despite its lack of substance.

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

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

For a system restore operation, the description is incomplete: it never explains that the tool restores a backup by ID, nor what effects the restore has on the system. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the core semantics and prerequisites are missing. An agent could easily misuse the tool or misunderstand its impact.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. It only states that id is a path parameter, without clarifying that the id refers to a backup ID or how it is used. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema's basic integer type.

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

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

The description says 'Create Backup' but the endpoint path is /restore/{id}, indicating this tool actually restores a backup, not creates one. The plain-language statement is misleading, and the tool name 'create_system_backup_restore_by_id' does not resolve the ambiguity. It fails to clearly state the resource and action, relying on the HTTP path for the real meaning.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_system_backup_restore_upload or list_system_backup. The description does not explain whether to prefer this tool for restoring an existing backup by ID or when an upload is required. It effectively provides no usage context.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, not the actual upload/restore behavior, expected request body, or side effects on existing data. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the added behavioral transparency 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.

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

The description is short, but 'Create Backup' is redundant with the tool name and the endpoint line carries almost all the information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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

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

For an upload/restore operation, the description fails to explain the key behavior: that it uploads a backup file and triggers a restore. It also gives no indication of what input the caller must provide beyond the empty schema, nor when to choose this over the restore-by-id sibling.

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

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

The input schema is empty and parameter count is zero, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not add parameter detail, but none exists in the schema. However, the 'upload' endpoint likely implies a file body that is not mentioned, which is more of a completeness gap than a parameter-semantics issue.

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

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

The description's only prose is 'Create Backup', which is essentially a tautology of the tool name and hides the critical 'restore/upload' semantics. The endpoint line adds specificity, but an agent would still not know this operation uploads a backup file for restoration rather than creating a backup.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like create_system_backup_restore_by_id, delete_system_backup_by_id, or list_system_backup. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the endpoint path.

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

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

The endpoint implies a restart, but the description never states what happens: it does not mention that the system will reboot, that active operations may be interrupted, or what the response/result means. Annotations give idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral detail.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but the opening line 'Create System.' is wasteful and actively confusing; it does not convey the restart behavior. The endpoint is the only informative part, so the structure is concise but not effective.

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

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

Even though this is a zero-parameter call with an output schema, the description omits the essential context of what calling the endpoint does and when it should be used. For a system-restart operation, it should at minimum say that it restarts the system and warn about impact.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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

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

The description says 'Create System,' which is misleading—it does not say the tool restarts anything. The only useful clue is the endpoint 'POST /api/v1/system/restart', from which the action can be inferred, but the description itself fails to state the operation clearly or distinguish it from create_system_shutdown.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as create_system_shutdown or create_system_backup_restore_by_id. No context, trigger conditions, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention that the system will shut down, whether confirmation is required, or what side effects occur.

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

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

The description is short, but the 'Create System.' sentence is uninformative and potentially misleading. The endpoint line is useful, but the overall structure does not effectively convey the tool's purpose.

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

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

For a zero-parameter action with an output schema, the main missing context is the actual behavior: triggering a system shutdown. The name and endpoint hint at this, but the description does not confirm it or explain the implications, leaving an agent to guess.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful to add about parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description says 'Create System' and lists the endpoint, but it never states that this tool shuts down the system. 'Create System' is a generic and misleading label rather than a clear statement of the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_system_restart. The description only provides an endpoint with no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with covering safety. It adds the API endpoint and the need to discover the resource schema via GET or /schema, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear action, the endpoint, and an Args section with a direct payload instruction. There is no filler or redundant explanatory material; every line serves a purpose.

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

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

Given that the body is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed, the directive to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a good way to fill the gap. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool, though it omits what a 'tag' is in this system.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'body' as the request payload and directs the agent to consult GET or /schema for expected fields, which is helpful. However, it does not actually describe any fields or the structure of the body object, leaving the agent reliant on another endpoint.

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

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

The description states 'Create Tag' and gives the POST /api/v1/tag endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like update_tag_by_id and delete_tag_by_id, though it adds little beyond 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.

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

The instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' gives useful procedural guidance for preparing the request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use create_tag versus alternative tools or any exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description says 'Delete Application,' which is consistent with destructive. It adds the instruction to read the schema first, but no further behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is very short (three lines), front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though minimal.

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

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

For a bulk delete operation, the description does not clarify that it deletes multiple applications (only states 'Delete Application' singular), and it relies entirely on the schema pointer for body fields. An output schema exists so return values are covered, but the description is thin on behavioral scope and prerequisites.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the 'body' parameter, so the description must compensate. It says 'Request payload,' which merely restates the obvious, and directs to read the schema endpoint for fields, but does not provide actual parameter meaning or structure. This is insufficient given the lack of schema detail.

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

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

The description states 'Delete Application' and gives the endpoint /api/v1/applications/bulk, clearly identifying the resource and bulk operation. The name distinguishes it from delete_applications_by_id, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast the two scopes.

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

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

The only usage hint is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which guides parameter preparation but does not explain when to choose this tool over delete_applications_by_id or other bulk operations. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'Delete Application' and showing the HTTP method. It does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive operation. Since the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations, it earns a low score.

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

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

The description is exceptionally terse—three short lines that state the action, the HTTP method, and the argument. There is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While it is arguably too sparse for a helpful description, it achieves conciseness perfectly, which aligns with this dimension's focus on efficiency rather than completeness.

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

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

Despite being a simple tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description omits essential context for a destructive operation. It does not specify that this deletes a single application by ID (vs. bulk), nor does it address reversibility, confirmation, or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves an agent uninformed about key calling considerations.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'id' parameter. It only states 'id: Path parameter', which reiterates that it is a path parameter but does not clarify that it is the unique identifier of the application to be deleted. This is minimal and does not fully resolve the parameter's meaning, especially given the context of the application domain.

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

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

The description states 'Delete Application' and includes the DELETE HTTP method with the resource path '/api/v1/applications/{id}'. This clearly identifies the specific verb (delete) and resource (application by ID), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_applications_bulk (which handles multiple) and update/get by verb and resource shape. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this deletes a single application by ID, nor does it reference delete_applications_bulk for bulk deletion or explain any prerequisites (e.g., existing application ID). The only implied context is that an ID is required, which is already evident from the schema. An agent has no help in deciding between this and the bulk variant.

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

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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which restates the delete action but does not disclose irreversibility, authorization needs, side effects, or error behavior beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose. Every line earns its place: the action, the endpoint, and the parameter location. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

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

For a destructive operation, the description is too sparse. It omits what deletion entails, whether it is permanent, what happens on invalid IDs, and any prerequisite conditions. Output schema covers return values, but behavioral context is missing.

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

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's 'id: Path parameter' adds the location detail that the schema lacks. However, it does not explain what the id refers to or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type, so it only partially compensates.

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

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

The description states the verb and resource directly: 'Delete AppProfile.' The HTTP path `/api/v1/appprofile/{id}` clarifies it operates on a specific AppProfile by ID, which distinguishes it from get/update and other delete_*_by_id siblings.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus get_appprofile_by_id or update_appprofile_by_id, nor does it mention prerequisites, alternatives, or consequences of deletion.

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

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'Delete' without adding behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to dependent resources. With annotations covering the destructive profile, the description contributes no additional transparency.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with 'Delete Command' first, followed by the HTTP method, path, and argument. There is no filler, though it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description identifies the resource and parameter location, but it lacks any explanation of the id semantics, expected behavior, or relationship to sibling command tools. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, but the description alone leaves the agent without enough context to confidently confirm this is the correct deletion target.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which adds no semantic meaning beyond the path template and the required integer schema. The description does not clarify that id is the command ID to be removed.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Delete Command') and the HTTP DELETE endpoint with an {id} path parameter, making it clear that this tool deletes one command by its identifier. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and verb are unambiguous and distinct from get_command_by_id or create_command.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, such as checking that the command exists before deletion. The DELETE method and single id parameter imply a delete operation, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Delete' wording is consistent with those. The description adds only the exact HTTP endpoint and path-parameter detail, but does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, what happens to dependent data, or error behavior.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint and a single argument line. There is no fluff, and every line carries information, though the structure is mechanically auto-generated from API documentation rather than crafted.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not state that deletion is permanent, whether the id must reference an existing filter, or success/failure semantics (e.g., 404 behavior). The basic operation, endpoint, and parameter are covered.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'id: Path parameter', which adds minimal value beyond the schema by indicating URL placement. It does not explain what the id refers to, that it must identify an existing custom filter, or the effect of an invalid/absent id.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete CustomFilter') and the HTTP endpoint (DELETE /api/v1/customfilter/{id}), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools targeting other resources. However, it adds little beyond restating the tool name and offers no scope clarification (e.g., permanence or cascading effects).

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_customfilter_by_id or create_customfilter. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent with those. The description adds no further behavioral detail about side effects, irreversibility, or bulk semantics, but the annotation profile covers the key safety signal.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the action, endpoint, and a helpful pointer for the body payload. The opening line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is clean and scannable.

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

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

For a one-argument bulk-delete tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks explicit bulk-deletion semantics and does not mention what the body should look like, though the schema pointer mitigates that gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies body as a request payload and points the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. It stops short of explaining what the body must contain, leaving the agent to fetch the actual field definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the action and resource ('Delete DownloadClient') and includes the exact bulk endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from delete_downloadclient_by_id, but the name and URI make the bulk intent fairly evident.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this bulk variant versus a single-item delete, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and endpoint, not stated in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent; there is no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond what the annotations and endpoint already communicate, so the added behavioral context 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.

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

The description is very short and to the point, with no obvious filler. The REST endpoint and Args lines are somewhat redundant with the schema and URL, but the overall structure is scannable and efficient.

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

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

This is a simple single-parameter DELETE operation, with annotations covering destructiveness/idempotence and an output schema present. The description gives an agent enough to call it, though it omits explicit side-effect or alternative-tool context.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to clarify the id parameter. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which is already evident from the URL and doesn't explain that the id identifies the download client to delete, though the resource name makes this mostly inferable.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Delete DownloadClient') and shows the REST path. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from delete_downloadclient_bulk, but the name and endpoint make the single-resource target inferable.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as delete_downloadclient_bulk, nor any prerequisites like the client not being in use. The agent is left to infer usage context 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.

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a useful preflight instruction ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'), though it does not describe the actual destructive effects or response behavior.

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

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

The description is tight and front-loaded with the action, endpoint, and argument guidance. There is no filler, though the bulk semantics could have been made explicit in prose.

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

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

For a destructive bulk operation, the description omits what the body should contain to select targets and does not say 'multiple' or 'bulk' in prose. It relies heavily on annotations and external schema references, leaving the agent to infer critical invocation details.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only labels 'body' as 'Request payload' before pointing to external endpoints. It does not describe expected fields or shapes, though the pointer to the schema endpoint provides an actionable discovery path.

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

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

The description uses a clear verb and resource ('Delete Indexer') and includes the endpoint '/api/v1/indexer/bulk', which signals the bulk variant and distinguishes it from delete_indexer_by_id. It is brief though not explicitly phrased as 'delete multiple indexers,' relying on tool name and endpoint.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this bulk delete versus the single delete alternative, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The only instruction is to consult the GET/schema endpoint, which addresses payload preparation rather than tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safe-to-delete behavior is covered elsewhere. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior for nonexistent ids.

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

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

The description is highly concise: a one-line purpose, the raw endpoint, and a short parameter note. Every component earns its place and the core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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

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

For a single-parameter destructive delete with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit usage guidance around alternatives, but the endpoint and schema are sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema documents only 'id' as a required integer, and the description adds that it is a path parameter, which is meaningful. However, the description does not clarify what the id identifies beyond the endpoint path, leaving the parameter semantics mostly self-evident.

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

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

The description states the action directly as 'Delete Indexer' and includes the HTTP endpoint DELETE /api/v1/indexer/{id}, which identifies the resource and the path parameter. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like delete_indexer_bulk, though it relies somewhat on the name and endpoint rather than describing the precise scope.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_indexer_bulk or update_indexer_by_id. It implies singular deletion via the {id} path parameter, but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the DELETE operation, such as what happens if the ID is not found, whether related data is affected, or any authorization requirements.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: 'Delete IndexerProxy.' followed by the endpoint and argument. It contains no filler, though the title sentence and HTTP method are somewhat redundant.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description is mostly complete. The output schema is present, annotations cover the destructive and idempotent behavior, and the endpoint template clarifies how to invoke the tool. It lacks a bit of context about effects and error cases, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single parameter as a path parameter and shows its placement in the endpoint URL, which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what the ID refers to beyond the resource name already given.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Delete IndexerProxy' with the HTTP DELETE endpoint, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_indexerproxy_by_id and update_indexerproxy_by_id by specifying the delete operation.

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

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

Usage is implied by the name and the 'Delete IndexerProxy' statement: use this when you want to remove a specific IndexerProxy by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as bulk deletion or update operations.

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

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

The description merely restates 'Delete Notification' and the endpoint, adding no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It does not mention permanence, cascading effects, permissions, or failure behavior.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action. It includes only the endpoint, a short arg note, and no filler. The HTTP line is somewhat redundant with the tool name but still useful for invocation.

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

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

Given the simple single-parameter delete operation, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it lacks usage context and offers no warning beyond the existing destructiveHint annotation.

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

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'id' is a path parameter, which the schema does not specify, but it does not explain what the id identifies beyond the schema's title.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete Notification' and the DELETE endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from notification create/get/update/list tools and other delete_*_by_id sibling tools by naming the resource.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_notification_by_id or get_notification_by_id. The endpoint is shown, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description only repeats the action and provides the HTTP method/path, without adding context such as irreversibility, file removal, permission requirements, or side effects.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded: a one-line summary, a raw HTTP endpoint, and an Args note. Every line carries functional information, though the first sentence largely duplicates the tool name.

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

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

For a single-parameter destructive operation with annotations and an output schema, the description provides the essential request shape. It lacks usage guidance and explicit warnings about deletion consequences, leaving it moderately complete but not comprehensive.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by noting that id is a path parameter and showing its URL placeholder. It does not explain what the ID represents or add constraints, but the tool name and simple integer type make this minimally adequate.

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

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

The description states 'Delete Backup' and gives the exact HTTP endpoint, clearly identifying a destructive action on the system backup resource. It is distinguishable from sibling delete_*_by_id tools because it specifically targets system backups.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_system_backup_restore_by_id or list_system_backup. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the HTTP route (redundant with the tool name) and does not disclose side effects, such as whether deleting a tag removes it from associated items or requires special permissions.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, and nothing is verbose. However, the HTTP method and route line largely repeat information already present in the tool name, and the structure is minimal without earning extra credit.

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

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

For a trivial one-parameter delete tool with annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency and an output schema present, the minimal description is mostly adequate. The missing piece is side-effect disclosure (what happens to resources that reference the tag), but the annotation and output-schema coverage lower the burden.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The 'Args: id: Path parameter' line adds the useful clarification that id is a path parameter rather than a body field, but it does not elaborate on what the id references (left to the tool name) or any additional constraints.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete Tag'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag, list_tag, get_tag_by_id, and update_tag_by_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or scope, but the delete-by-id operation is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives such as update_tag_by_id or bulk delete operations. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line description, with no preconditions, exclusions, or consequences stated.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path shape, which is useful, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or required permissions.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and the parameter note. It contains no filler and each line adds necessary invocation detail.

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

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

For a simple read-by-id tool, the description, combined with the schema, annotations, and output schema, provides enough information to make a correct call. It could be more complete by explaining what an Application is or what absence of an id might cause, but those are not critical given the low complexity.

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

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

The schema only documents id as an integer, but the description adds that id is a path parameter. This is meaningful because it tells the agent where the value belongs in the request URL. The meaning of id is also inferable from the endpoint and tool name, though not explicitly explained.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Read Application" and the HTTP endpoint "GET /api/v1/applications/{id}". This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from list-oriented siblings like list_applications.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_applications or get_*_by_id tools. It only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions that should select it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' wording is consistent with those. The description adds the HTTP method and path parameter context, but no further behavioral details such as error cases, response semantics, or authorization requirements are disclosed. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage but does not exceed a baseline score.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action, and the endpoint is stated clearly. Every line earns its place, though the 'Args' block essentially restates schema information rather than adding substantial new value.

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

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

For a one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: the HTTP method, the path template, and the role of the id. It does not explain error behavior or response format, but the output schema covers the return shape and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does add that 'id' is a path parameter and shows its placement in the URL, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type. However, it still does not explicitly state that this is the AppProfile's unique identifier, leaving the semantic meaning mostly to inference from the tool name.

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

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

The description states the exact operation in one short verb phrase: 'Read AppProfile.' Combined with the tool name and the explicit GET endpoint, there is no ambiguity about what resource and action are involved. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools because it targets a single AppProfile by ID, while related tools like list_appprofile handle listing.

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

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

The usage context is implied by the path and the 'id' argument: call this when you have a specific AppProfile ID and want to read it. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_appprofile or update_appprofile_by_id, and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by using the verb 'Read'. It adds no extra behavioral context such as external API calls, rate limits, or return format, but the annotations already cover the safety profile, so the lower bar is met.

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

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

The description is concise and well-structured: 'Read Newznab.' is front-loaded, followed by the HTTP path and a clear 'Args:' block with one parameter per line. While the parameter list is long, the path/query distinction justifies the repetition and the format is easy to scan.

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

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

Given 33 parameters and a schema with zero descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits parameter semantics, response details, and any indication of when to use this tool, leaving significant gaps despite the presence of an output schema and annotations.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds path/query location labels for each parameter, which is helpful, but it does not explain the semantic meaning of any parameter (e.g., what 't', 'q', or 'cat' represent), leaving the agent without crucial information for correct usage.

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

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

The description opens with 'Read Newznab,' providing a clear verb and a resource name, and includes the HTTP endpoint 'GET /{id}/api'. However, it does not explain what 'Newznab' refers to or how this tool differs from closely named siblings like get_indexer_by_id_newznab, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters and does not mention that it targets a specific indexer's Newznab API or provide any exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what the download does, what response to expect, or any limitations. It merely states 'Read Newznab' and the endpoint, which does not enrich the annotation-provided information.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but brevity is not the issue – it is under-specified. It does not front-load useful information; 'Read Newznab' is vague and unhelpful. The structure is a bare endpoint and parameter list, which is not structured to aid an agent in understanding the tool's behavior or usage.

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

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

With three parameters, one required, no schema descriptions, and only an output schema existence flag (not its contents), the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, how to use it correctly, or what it returns. This is a low-complexity tool but the description leaves all critical context missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of any parameters. It simply lists 'id: Path parameter', 'link: Query parameter', 'file: Query parameter' – redundant with the schema structure. There is no clarification of what 'id' identifies, what 'link' or 'file' control, or any constraints beyond type and required status. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

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

The description says 'Read Newznab' which is cryptic and does not clearly state what resource or action this tool performs. It fails to specify that it downloads a file or content associated with an id, and it does not differentiate it from siblings like get_indexer_by_id_download or get_by_id_api. The verb 'Read' is present but the resource is undefined, making the purpose ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. It only lists parameters without explaining their purpose or how they relate to the action.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only adds 'GET /{path}', which is redundant and adds no new behavioral context such as response format, error handling, or side effects.

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

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

The description is short and the 'Read StaticResource.' line is front-loaded, but the rest is redundant (HTTP method and parameter repetition). It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, as sentences do not add value beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

For a tool with one parameter and a simple read operation, the description still lacks essential context: what constitutes a StaticResource, what the output schema contains, or any error conditions. Even with an output schema present, the description does not help an agent understand the tool's domain or usage.

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

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

The description merely repeats 'path: Path parameter.', which is tautological given the schema property name 'path'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but offers no additional meaning, format constraints, or examples.

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

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

The description states 'Read StaticResource.' which includes a specific verb and a resource type. It is clear that the tool reads a static resource, but 'StaticResource' is not defined further and the name 'get_by_path' is generic. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_content_by_path' which likely serves a similar purpose.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools. The agent has no information to decide between this and 'get_content_by_path'.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a safe, non-mutating, idempotent read operation. The description adds the detail that it uses a GET request and a path parameter, which is consistent but not surprising. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like error handling or response format beyond what the output schema might provide. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is very brief, just a few lines, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose 'Read Command'. However, it includes redundant technical details like the full HTTP path and 'Args: id: Path parameter.' that are already visible in the schema and may not add value for an agent. It's concise but not maximally informative.

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

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

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema that likely describes the return value. The description provides the essential operation and endpoint, but lacks information about error scenarios or any special conditions for retrieval. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, it's minimally complete but not rich in context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter information. The schema itself only gives the type (integer) and title (Id), but lacks any description of what the ID represents or its format. The description says 'Args: id: Path parameter.' which restates that it's a path parameter but adds no semantic meaning. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to do so.

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

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

The description begins with 'Read Command', which states the verb and resource clearly. However, it doesn't specify what a 'Command' is or what the response contains, and there are many sibling get_*_by_id tools, so it doesn't distinguish itself from, say, get_notification_by_id or get_tag_by_id beyond the resource name. It is clear enough for basic intent but lacks specificity about the domain object.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a single command by ID, nor does it explain the context in which you'd choose this over list_command or other get_*_by_id tools. The description only states the HTTP endpoint and arguments, leaving usage entirely implied.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path, which are not in annotations, but does not disclose potential behaviors like not-found errors, permission requirements, or response shape. Given the rich annotations, this level of added context is adequate but not outstanding.

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

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

The description is extremely compact: one primary sentence, the endpoint, and a one-line parameter note. Every component is necessary, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy earns a top score for conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one required integer parameter), the presence of annotations covering safety, and an output schema that defines the return value, the description is almost complete. It lacks only a brief usage-oriented context (e.g., 'Use list_config_development to find IDs'), but the existing combination of name, description, and schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'id: Path parameter', which adds the fact that the id is a path parameter (not just a named field) but provides no semantic meaning about what the id represents or what values are valid. The tool name implies it's the DevelopmentConfig's ID, but the description does not explicitly clarify that. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema description.

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

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

The description opens with 'Read DevelopmentConfig', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from update_config_development_by_id and the other get_config_*_by_id siblings. The HTTP GET path reinforces the 'read by ID' purpose. An agent can unambiguously tell what this tool does.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_config_development or other get_*_by_id tools. The description only implies usage through the name and endpoint, but does not state 'use this to fetch a single config by id' or direct the agent to list tools for enumeration. This is a minimal implication, not explicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Read' aligns with them without contradiction. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but for a single-record GET by ID there is little extra to disclose; it neither harmfully omits nor actively contributes.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by the endpoint and a minimal Args note. There is no wasted prose, though the inclusion of the raw HTTP path and docstring-style Args is slightly redundant with the tool name and schema.

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

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

For a one-integer-parameter read with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics. The main gap is contextual: nothing distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling get_downloadclient_by_id, and no mention is made of what the returned config contains or when the lookup would fail.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'id: Path parameter' adds the transport location (path, not query or body), which is genuinely beyond the schema's bare integer/required declaration. However, it does not say what the id refers to or its semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name that it is a DownloadClient config ID.

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

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

The lead line 'Read DownloadClientConfig' states a clear verb and resource, which an agent can act on. However, the sibling get_downloadclient_by_id reads a closely related resource, and the description gives no cue about how the config entity differs from the client entity, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_downloadclient_by_id, list_config_downloadclient, or update_config_downloadclient_by_id. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and path parameter context, but does not describe return behavior, error cases, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with 'Read HostConfig.' The HTTP endpoint and Args line follow. There is no wasted content, though the endpoint duplication with the schema could be seen as minor redundancy.

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

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

For a simple read-by-id tool with a single required parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify what a HostConfig is, what the returned output looks like (though an output schema exists), or how the id is used beyond being a path parameter. The sibling list shows many similar tools, so some context about the resource would help.

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

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

The input schema has only one parameter 'id' with type integer, and the description says 'Args: id: Path parameter.' This adds a small amount of meaning—it clarifies that id is a path parameter—but the schema already documents the parameter name and type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's mention of id is somewhat helpful, but it doesn't explain what the id represents or how to obtain it.

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

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

The description 'Read HostConfig' clearly identifies the operation (read) and the resource (HostConfig), but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_config_development_by_id or get_config_downloadclient_by_id. The sibling list has many similar 'get_config_*_by_id' tools, so the description is minimally clear but lacks differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states 'Read HostConfig' and the HTTP endpoint. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other get_config_*_by_id tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by saying 'Read' and 'GET', but it adds no further behavioral context such as error handling, authentication requirements, or absence/presence of side effects.

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

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

The description is tightly structured with a purpose statement first, then the endpoint, then the argument list. There is no filler or redundant prose; every line contributes useful information.

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

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

For a simple read-by-id tool with one integer path parameter, an output schema, and thorough safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it gives the HTTP method, endpoint, and parameter location. The main gap is the implicit domain meaning of 'id', which is recoverable from the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the id parameter. It only says 'id: Path parameter', which is already visible from the URL template, and does not explain what the id represents, what values are valid, or what the id refers to in the UiConfig resource.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-object pair ('Read UiConfig') and includes the exact GET endpoint, so an agent can tell this is a read operation for UI configuration by id. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling getters like get_config_host_by_id or list_config_ui, so it stops short of full clarity.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_config_ui, get_config_development_by_id, or get_config_host_by_id. It only declares the operation and endpoint, leaving all selection criteria to be inferred from the tool name.

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