Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_empty_directoriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Find empty directories' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how it handles symbolic links, what happens with permission errors, or any rate limits. The description mentions output format options but doesn't describe the actual return structure or what 'empty directory information' includes.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The purpose statement is front-loaded. However, the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter explanation adds no value (it's boilerplate that should be omitted), and the Returns section is vague enough that it could be more concise or informative.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'empty' directory, how the search algorithm works, what the output actually contains, or provide any examples. The tool has meaningful complexity (recursive search with exclusions and format options) that isn't adequately addressed.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap - it doesn't explain what 'empty' means (no files at all? no regular files?), what patterns are supported for exclude_patterns, or provide examples. The parameter explanations are minimal and don't add rich semantic context beyond naming them.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Find empty directories' - a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_directory' or 'directory_tree' by focusing specifically on empty directories rather than general directory listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_directory' and 'directory_tree' that also provide directory information, there's no indication of when this specialized tool is preferable. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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

• get_file_infoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metadata but doesn't specify what metadata is included (e.g., size, permissions, timestamps), error handling for non-existent paths, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with file systems.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter is mentioned without explanation, slightly reducing clarity.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of file operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on metadata content, error cases, permissions, or return structure, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The description lists parameters 'path', 'format', and 'ctx', adding meaning beyond the input schema (which only covers 'path' and 'format' with 0% schema description coverage). It explains 'path' as 'Path to the file or directory' and 'format' as 'Output format ('text' or 'json')', which compensates partially for the low schema coverage, but doesn't detail 'ctx' or provide examples.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed metadata about a file or directory', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (content) or 'list_directory' (listing), though it doesn't explicitly mention those distinctions.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose 'get_file_info' over 'list_directory' for metadata or 'read_file' for content, nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence or permissions.

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

• list_allowed_directoriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't describe the format (e.g., array of strings, objects), any permissions or authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a read-only operation implied by 'Returns,' but without annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral details for safe invocation.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is structured with sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' but it's somewhat verbose for a simple tool. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the additional sections could be more streamlined. It earns its place by providing basic info, but there's room for improvement in efficiency.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value format (e.g., what 'List of allowed directories' entails—structure, data types) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that interacts with server permissions, more context on output and usage constraints is needed.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description includes an 'Args' section mentioning 'ctx: MCP context,' which adds minimal context beyond the empty schema, but this is redundant since the schema already fully defines the parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the list of directories that this server is allowed to access.' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of directories'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'directory_tree', which also list directories but with different scopes or formats.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'list_directory' that list directory contents, there's no indication of how this tool differs in application, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• move_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'overwrite' behavior but doesn't explain what happens when overwrite=false and destination exists, whether the operation is atomic, if it preserves metadata/permissions, or what specific error messages might be returned. For a file system mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by parameter documentation. However, the inclusion of 'ctx: MCP context' in the args section seems extraneous since it doesn't appear in the input schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a file system mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain error conditions, return value format beyond 'success or error message', path semantics, or how renaming versus moving differs. The mismatch between described parameters (4 including 'ctx') and schema parameters (3) creates confusion.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain path format requirements, what 'ctx' parameter does (appears to be an undocumented fourth parameter in the description), or provide examples. The coverage partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Move or rename files and directories.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'copy_file' (if it existed) or 'delete_file'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar operations in the sibling list, which includes file manipulation tools like edit_file, write_file, and create_directory.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'edit_file', 'write_file', and 'create_directory', there's no indication of when moving/renaming is appropriate versus editing content or creating new files. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

• compare_filesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'shows differences' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what type of comparison is performed (line-by-line, character-level?), whether it's read-only or modifies files, what happens with binary files, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters with clear explanations, and ends with the return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The bullet-like format for parameters is efficient and scannable.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters but leaves gaps. It doesn't describe the comparison algorithm, error conditions, or what the output looks like (beyond mentioning 'text' or 'json' format). For a comparison tool with behavioral complexity, more context about the comparison method and output structure would be helpful.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It clearly explains all 4 parameters: 'file1' and 'file2' as file paths, 'encoding' with its default, and 'format' with valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'text' vs 'json' format outputs look like.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two text files and show differences.' This is a specific verb ('compare') with clear resources ('two text files') and outcome ('show differences'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_duplicate_files' or 'search_files', which might involve file comparison in different contexts.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for file operations (e.g., 'find_duplicate_files', 'grep_files', 'search_files'), there's no indication of when this specific comparison tool is appropriate versus other file analysis tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• find_large_filesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the basic operation but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications for large directories, permission requirements, error handling, or what 'Large file information' specifically includes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic functionality.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then efficiently documents parameters in a bullet-like format, and ends with return information. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero wasted words. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections enhances readability.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It documents parameters well but lacks behavioral context about safety, performance, and error handling. The return description 'Large file information' is vague without an output schema. Given the complexity, it should provide more guidance on usage context and result interpretation.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by listing all 6 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies 'min_size_mb' is in megabytes, 'recursive' searches subdirectories, 'exclude_patterns' is optional, and 'format' has two output options. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about pattern syntax or result formatting.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find files larger than the specified size.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates it's a search/filtering operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'find_duplicate_files' beyond the size-based filtering focus.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_files' for general searches, 'find_duplicate_files' for duplicate detection, or 'calculate_directory_size' for size analysis. There's no context about when this specific size-based filtering is appropriate versus other file-finding operations.

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

• calculate_directory_sizeB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions recursion but doesn't disclose performance implications for large directories, error handling for invalid paths, or whether it follows symlinks. The return format options are listed but not explained.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise but could be slightly tighter by integrating the format options into the main sentence rather than a separate list.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks depth. It explains parameters adequately but doesn't detail return values beyond 'Directory size information', leaving ambiguity about output structure for different formats.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'path' as 'Directory path' and 'format' with its three options, adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. The 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not explained, slightly reducing completeness.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('calculate the total size') and resource ('directory recursively'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_file_info' (single file) or 'list_directory' (listing contents). The verb 'calculate' with 'recursively' precisely defines the scope.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_info' (for single files) or 'find_large_files' (for identifying large items). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to sibling tools.

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

• read_multiple_filesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (dictionary mapping paths to contents/errors) which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error handling strategy (does it fail fast or continue?), performance implications of reading many files, memory considerations, or whether it respects file permissions. The description provides basic output information but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with clear section headers makes it easy to parse while maintaining brevity.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters and return format. However, for a file reading tool with many sibling alternatives and no annotations, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like error handling strategy, performance considerations, and clearer differentiation from similar tools. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'paths' is a 'List of file paths to read' and 'encoding' is 'File encoding (default: utf-8)', providing clear semantic meaning. For the 'ctx' parameter, it simply states 'MCP context' without elaboration, but this is likely a standard parameter. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read multiple files at once.' This specifies the verb ('read') and resource ('multiple files'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'read_file' which handles single files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other reading-related siblings like 'read_file_lines' or 'head_file/tail_file'.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through its name and purpose statement - it's for reading multiple files simultaneously rather than one at a time. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'read_file' for single files or 'grep_files' for searching content. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• create_directoryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool can 'ensure a directory exists' and describes parameter behaviors (parents creation, error handling with exist_ok), which adds useful context beyond just 'create.' However, it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, or what specific error messages might be returned.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with helpful explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter explanation is somewhat redundant since MCP context is typically implicit.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters but could be more complete. It mentions return is a 'Success or error message' but doesn't specify format or examples. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error conditions would be helpful.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains what each parameter does: 'path: Path to the directory', 'parents: Create parent directories if they don't exist', 'exist_ok: Don't raise an error if directory already exists'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new directory or ensure a directory exists.' This specifies the verb (create/ensure) and resource (directory). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'directory_tree' beyond the obvious creation vs. listing distinction.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'move_file' or 'find_empty_directories' that might involve directory operations. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

• grep_filesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal some behavioral traits: the tool can search recursively, skip large files, and support pagination. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like performance characteristics, memory usage, error conditions, or whether the search is destructive (though 'grep' implies read-only).

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections for arguments and returns, but it's quite lengthy due to documenting all 18 parameters. While each parameter explanation earns its place, the front-loaded purpose statement could be more prominent. The structure is functional but not optimally concise.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a reasonably complete job. It thoroughly documents all parameters and mentions the return type ('Search results'). However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about result format, error handling, and performance considerations.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Each of the 18 parameters is clearly explained with meaningful context (e.g., 'like grep -C', 'for pagination', 'Skip files larger than this size'). This adds substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for pattern in files, similar to grep.' This specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('files'), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'find_duplicate_files', which prevents a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for file operations (like 'search_files', 'find_duplicate_files', 'read_file_lines'), there's no indication of when grep_files is the appropriate choice versus other search or file examination tools.

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

• directory_treeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions recursion depth and filtering capabilities, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: whether this operation is read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics for large directories, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens with symbolic links. The description provides basic functionality but lacks critical operational context.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and front-loads the core functionality. The 'Args' section could be more concise by grouping related parameters, but overall it's efficient with minimal wasted text.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't explain the return format details (what 'Formatted directory tree' actually contains), error conditions, performance considerations, or how it differs meaningfully from simpler sibling tools like 'list_directory'.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section. Each parameter gets a brief semantic explanation beyond just naming them (e.g., 'Maximum recursion depth' for max_depth, 'Optional glob pattern to filter entries' for pattern). However, it doesn't provide format details for patterns or depth constraints.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recursive tree view of files and directories'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_directory' (which likely lists without recursion) and 'calculate_directory_size' (which focuses on size calculation rather than tree structure).

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for obtaining hierarchical directory views but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_directory' or 'search_files'. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or about performance considerations with deep recursion.

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

• find_duplicate_filesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the comparison method (file sizes and contents) and output format options, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like performance characteristics (scanning could be slow), memory usage, whether it follows symlinks, error handling, or what happens when max_files is reached. The description provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. The Args section is comprehensive but could be more concise - some parameter explanations are brief but effective. Overall efficient with minimal wasted space, though the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter explanation adds little value.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has gaps. It explains parameters well and mentions output format options, but doesn't describe the structure of returned 'Duplicate file information' or important behavioral considerations. The description is complete enough for basic usage but lacks depth for optimal agent understanding.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section, providing meaningful context beyond just parameter names. Each parameter gets a brief semantic explanation (e.g., 'Minimum file size to consider (bytes)', 'Optional patterns to exclude'), though some explanations could be more detailed (like what patterns are supported).

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Find duplicate files') and method ('by comparing file sizes and contents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_files (which compares specific files) or find_large_files (which finds large files). It provides a complete purpose statement with both what it does and how it works.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'Starting directory', 'Whether to search subdirectories'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_files or search_files. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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

• edit_file_at_lineA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a file mutation tool (implied by 'Edit'), describes the dry_run option for safe testing, and mentions verification failure handling. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error conditions, permission requirements, atomicity of edits, or what happens with concurrent access.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. While somewhat lengthy due to the complex parameter set, every sentence adds value. The structure is logical with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters but leaves gaps. It doesn't describe the return format ('Edit results summary' is vague), doesn't explain error handling, and lacks context about file system permissions or edge cases. The parameter documentation is strong, but overall completeness is limited.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates. It explains all 8 parameters with clear semantics, including detailed breakdown of the complex 'line_edits' array structure, default values, and behavioral implications of flags like 'relative_line_numbers' and 'abort_on_verification_failure'.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('specific lines in a text file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'edit_file' (which likely edits entire files) and 'write_file' (which overwrites files). The description immediately establishes this is a line-level editing operation.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_file' or 'write_file'. While it's clear this tool edits specific lines, there's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools that might handle similar file operations differently.

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

• list_directoryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions output formatting but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed listing' includes (e.g., file sizes, permissions). For a read operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the 'ctx: MCP context' line is redundant since MCP context is implicit. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return format details, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a directory listing tool with filtering options, more context about output structure and limitations would be helpful.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description adds substantial meaning beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: path as directory location, include_hidden for dot-files, pattern as glob filter, and format as output type. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters understandable.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific verb ('Get a detailed listing') and resource ('files and directories in a path'), distinguishing it from siblings like directory_tree (hierarchical view) or search_files (content-based). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage through the parameter explanations (e.g., pattern for filtering, format for output), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_allowed_directories or directory_tree. There's no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context to inference.

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

• search_filesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the recursive nature and parameter purposes, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, whether it follows symlinks, or what happens when max_results is exceeded. The description provides basic operational context but misses critical behavioral details.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns: Search results' line is somewhat redundant given the tool name and could be more specific. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, file system operations) and complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains parameters well but misses behavioral context about permissions, error handling, and result formatting details. For a search tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should do more to compensate.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 7 parameters. Each parameter gets a concise explanation that adds meaning beyond the bare schema: 'path: Starting directory', 'pattern: Glob pattern to match against filenames', 'recursive: Whether to search subdirectories', etc. The description transforms the parameter list from just names to meaningful usage guidance.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('recursively search for files and directories') and resources ('matching a pattern'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (simple listing), grep_files (content-only search), or find_large_files (size-based filtering). The description explicitly mentions both file and directory search capabilities.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the mention of 'recursively search' and parameter explanations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like grep_files (for content-only searches) or list_directory (for simple directory listing without pattern matching). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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

• write_fileA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool can 'overwrite an existing file' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like permission requirements, whether overwrites are reversible, error handling for invalid paths, or rate limits. The return value description ('Success or error message') is vague about format.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks sufficient behavioral context for a destructive file operation. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or security implications, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool that modifies files.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond their schema titles, including default values and purposes (e.g., 'encoding: File encoding (default: utf-8)', 'create_dirs: Whether to create parent directories if they don't exist'). This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new file or overwrite an existing file') and resource ('file with new content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file, edit_file, and move_file. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for file creation or overwriting but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_file or create_directory. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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

• read_fileA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reading complete contents) and mentions a default encoding, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if file doesn't exist), performance implications for large files, or security constraints. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses only essential sentences. However, the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter mention is redundant since it's not in the actual input schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (file reading with encoding), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about return format details (e.g., string format for binary files), error scenarios, and performance considerations that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It successfully explains both parameters: 'path' as 'Path to the file' and 'encoding' as 'File encoding (default: utf-8)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on path format requirements or valid encoding values.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the complete contents') and resource ('of a file'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_file_lines (partial reading) or get_file_info (metadata only). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage for reading entire file contents, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like read_file_lines (for specific lines) or head_file/tail_file (for beginning/end). It provides clear context but lacks explicit sibling differentiation or exclusion guidance.

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

• read_file_linesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of file size limits, error handling (e.g., for missing files or invalid encodings), performance characteristics, or what 'metadata' in the return includes. For a file I/O tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter explanations and return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (file I/O with line selection), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context (error handling, limits) and details about the return structure ('metadata' is vague). For a tool with these characteristics, more completeness would be expected.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides comprehensive parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'path' as file location, 'offset' as 0-based line starting point, 'limit' as maximum lines (with None meaning all remaining), and 'encoding' as text encoding with default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read specific lines') and resource ('from a text file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_file' (which reads entire files) and 'head_file'/'tail_file' (which read from beginning/end). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (offset, limit), suggesting this tool is for selective line reading rather than full-file reading. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'read_file', 'head_file', or 'tail_file', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• edit_fileA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can perform dry runs and returns Git-style diffs, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, file locking behavior, permission requirements, or what happens with non-existent files - significant gaps for a file mutation tool.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information, no wasted words. The formatting with clear section headers enhances readability.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a file mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and mentions the return format, but doesn't cover error handling, permission requirements, or edge cases. Given the complexity of file editing operations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'edits' expects dictionaries with 'oldText' and 'newText' keys, specifies the default for 'encoding' and 'dry_run', and explains what 'dry_run' does. The only gap is not explaining the 'ctx' parameter's purpose.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Make line-based edits') and resource ('to a text file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edit_file_at_line' (which implies different editing granularity) and 'write_file' (which likely overwrites entire files). The phrase 'line-based edits' provides precise scope information.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for making line-based edits to text files) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It distinguishes from 'edit_file_at_line' by implying different editing approaches, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on choosing between them.

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

• head_fileA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads files, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., for missing files or encoding issues), performance characteristics, or security constraints. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. The formatting enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns adequately, but lacks details on error cases or behavioral nuances. For a read operation with simple inputs, this is sufficient though not exhaustive.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'path' (file location), 'lines' (number of lines with default), and 'encoding' (text encoding with default). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter purposes and defaults explicit and understandable.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the first N lines') and resource ('of a text file'), which directly explains what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (reads entire file) and 'tail_file' (reads last lines), making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for reading initial portions of files, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file' (for full content) or 'tail_file' (for end of file). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly articulated.

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

• tail_fileA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reading last lines) and default values, but doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., file not found, insufficient permissions), performance characteristics, or what happens with very large files. It adequately describes the basic operation but lacks richer behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters and return values. However, for a file I/O tool, it could mention error handling or security considerations. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral context.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 3 parameters: path ('Path to the file'), lines ('Number of lines to read'), and encoding ('Text encoding'), including their default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the last N lines') and resource ('of a text file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like head_file (which reads first lines) and read_file (which reads entire file). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage context (reading end of files) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like head_file or read_file_lines. However, the function name 'tail_file' and description make the intended use case reasonably clear without explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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