Windows Operations MCP

by sandraschi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v15.3.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools overlap significantly: winops_process_list, process_list_card, and winops_perf_process all surface process data, and winops_process_info vs winops_perf_process are nearly identical. The card-based tools (process_list_card, system_health_card) duplicate winops_sys_health and winops_process_list with only a formatting difference. An agent will frequently struggle to pick the correct tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority follow winops_<domain>_<action>, but this is broken by process_list_card, system_health_card, agentic_system_hardening, and autonomous_troubleshooter lacking the prefix. Inconsistent verb usage appears in winops_accounts_group_members (noun) vs winops_accounts_list_groups (verb_noun) and the awkward winops_auto_task_list/task_create split. Readable but not uniform.
Tool Count2/5
At 59 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' While the breadth covers many Windows operations domains, the sheer count overwhelms an agent's ability to select efficiently, and several tools (e.g., JSON utilities, archive helpers) are generic rather than Windows-specific.
Completeness3/5
Core lifecycles for accounts, services, event logs, and firewall rules are well covered, and the JSON/archive utilities are thorough. However, notable gaps exist: no process creation (only via shell), no service create/delete, no registry operations, and container support is skeletal (exec/cp only). Some workflows hit dead ends requiring shell fallbacks.
Average 3.9/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 17, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, giving no positive safety profile, so the description carries the full burden. The tool discloses its return format {"success": bool, "username": str} and provides a usage example, which is mildly informative, but it says nothing about what happens on duplicate usernames, permission failures, password complexity enforcement, or other side effects. For a mutating, security-relevant operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a model of conciseness: a single front-loaded purpose sentence, a clearly labeled Return Format JSON block, and one example call. Every element earns its place with no filler or redundancy, making it highly digestible for an agent.
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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is serviceable: it provides purpose, return contract, and an example. However, it falls short of full completeness by omitting error-handling behavior (e.g., behavior when the user already exists — especially relevant given idempotentHint: false), privilege requirements, and post-creation side effects. These would elevate it to a 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('Initial password.' and 'New user account name.'), so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The example add_user(username="jsmith", password="P@ssw0rd!") hints that complex passwords are valid but doesn't add real semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no format constraints, length limits, or special handling).
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 opening sentence, 'Create a new local Windows user account,' provides a specific verb (Create), a clear resource (local Windows user account), and a scope marker ('local'). This clearly differentiates it from similar account-management siblings like winops_accounts_remove_user, winops_accounts_set_password, and winops_accounts_list_users. It doesn't earn a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast its purpose the way the get_calls example did.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin rights), exclusions (e.g., not for domain accounts), or alternatives among the many sibling tools (remove_user, set_password, manage_group). The only implicit usage signal is the word 'local,' which hints at scope but isn't a substitute for explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It provides a return format, but does not disclose potential failures (e.g., password policy violations, non-existent user) or permission requirements. Given idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the bar is low, but the description still falls short.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return format and example are well-structured. However, it could be more informative without being verbose, so it's slightly above average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the basic functionality. Since an output format is provided and annotations indicate idempotency, it is mostly complete. However, it omits error scenarios and any preconditions, making it insufficient for more complex use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with basic descriptions ('New password.', 'Target user account.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds an example with concrete values, which marginally aids understanding but does not elaborate on constraints or formatting.
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 'Set the password for a local Windows user account' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like winops_accounts_add_user or winops_accounts_remove_user by focusing solely on password setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that the user must exist, nor does it contrast with other account management tools. The example is helpful but does not convey usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate that this is a safe, read-only, and idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral information: it states the return format is a JSON object with 'success' and 'raw_rules', but does not describe potential failures, such as permission issues, or that the output is raw text. Given that annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not deep 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it includes an excessive return format block and example that are not essential for a tool with no parameters ken. The return format is useful, but the example is trivial and adds little value. The description is front-loaded with the purpose, but the rest is not entirely necessary, resulting in an average conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parametersasi, and the output schema is provided, so the description need not detail return values beyond what it gives. However, the description does not mention what the 'raw_rules' string contains (e.g., output of netsh advfirewall command) or how to parse it. It also does not mention if it supports filtering or if it lists all profiles (public/private/domain). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but could be more informative about the nature of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers this fully (schema_description_coverage=100%). Since there are no parameters, there is nothing to document; the baseline is 4 because no parameter semantics are needed. The description correctly includes an example call, but there is no additional parameter meaning to add.
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: 'List all Windows Firewall rules via netsh.' The verb 'List' and resource 'Windows Firewall rules' are specificable, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'winops_net_firewall_add' and 'delete', which modify rules. However, it does not explicitly note that it only lists (read-only) beyond the annotations, but the purpose is clear.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It is a simple listing tool, but there is no mention of contexts such as 'use this to inspect firewall rules' or 'use winops_net_firewall_add to modify.' The read-only nature is implied by annotations, but the description itself lacks 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.
Behavior3/5
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 the return format ({"success": bool, "raw_output": str}), providing some value beyond annotations, though it doesn't elaborate on error conditions or scope of enumeration. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-sentence core purpose, a clearly formatted return-format section, and a usage example. Every section earns its place. Minor blemish: the example function name 'list_groups()' doesn't match the tool's actual name 'winops_accounts_list_groups', though this is a minor style issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with strong annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, its return shape, and how to call it. Nothing critical is missing given the tool's simplicity, though it could note any default enumeration limits or independence from domain joins.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The example 'list_groups()' reinforces the no-argument call signature, meeting the 0-parameter baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List local Windows groups.' uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource scope ('local Windows groups'), and the qualifier 'local' helps distinguish it from siblings like winops_accounts_list_users and winops_accounts_group_members. It's clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero when-to-use guidance, no context on when to prefer this over winops_accounts_group_members or winops_accounts_list_users, and no exclusions or alternatives. The usage is only implied by the verb and resource, matching the 'no guidance' description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a write operation, which is consistent with the description. It adds the note that the output is a .evtx file, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, required permissions, failure behavior). The return format is useful but does not go beyond what the output schema provides.
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 concise with a clear one-line purpose, a return format section, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded. The example is helpful but could be slightly more compact; still, every component earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details on error conditions or permission requirements, and since annotations are sparse, a bit more context would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description provides an example that clarifies 'output_path' format (e.g., D:\logs\system.evtx) and 'log_name' usage (e.g., 'System'), but does not add substantial additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports a Windows Event Log channel to an .evtx file, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like winops_evtlog_query and winops_evtlog_clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 provides a basic example and implies the tool is for exporting logs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like querying logs (winops_evtlog_query). It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existence of the log channel) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the detailed flag includes boot time, users, and CPU frequency, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential performance impact or that some fields might be platform-dependent. With annotations carrying the core safety info, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: one sentence defining purpose, then a return format block and examples. The JSON return format block is a bit verbose for the description but is useful context. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Could be trimmed, but overall 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?
The tool is simple (1 optional param, output defined). The description fully explains the return format and the effect of the detailed param. The output schema is provided in the description itself. Given the low complexity, the description is complete. No additional context needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the detailed parameter is described in the input schema ('Include boot time, users, and CPU frequency.'). The description's return format reinforces the meaning ('detailed only') but adds no additional semantic content beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool returns ('OS platform, Python version, CPU core count, and total memory') with a specific verb ('Return'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like system_health_card and winops_sys_health, which likely provide health status rather than raw system info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's name (sys_info) is self-explanatory, the description doesn't explain scenarios (e.g., 'use this for basic system identification, use system_health_card for overall system status'). No exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the return format and an example but does not reveal potential side effects of disabling ACL inheritance, like conversion of inherited ACEs to explicit ones or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, containing a one-sentence action, a clear JSON return format, and a minimal relevant example. There is no redundant text.
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?
With complete parameter documentation, helpful annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It omits edge-case behavior regarding ACL inheritance, but that is not needed for most selection and invocation cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents both parameters with defaults, giving 100% coverage. The example adds a sample call for `enable=False` but does not convey anything new about path semantics or behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the exact action: 'Enable or disable ACL inheritance on a file or directory.' It names the verb and resource, and is distinguishable from ACL siblings like winops_acl_get, winops_acl_grant, and winops_acl_revoke.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The description only explains the operation and gives an example; no context 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.
Behavior3/5
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 the return format (success, path, items, count) and an example path, but since an output schema exists, the return format is partially redundant. The description does not contradict annotations and provides some useful context about the output structure.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a return-format block and a brief example, both of which are relevant but somewhat redundant with the existing output schema. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized, though the code block adds a few extra lines that could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists. The description states the purpose and provides an example invocation. This is complete for the tool's complexity; an agent has enough information to select and correctly invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter is adequately described in the schema as 'Path to ZIP or TAR archive.' The description adds an example path ('D:\backups\data.zip') but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List the contents of a ZIP or TAR archive,' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (archive). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_archive_extract, winops_archive_create, and winops_archive_add.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a read-only inspection tool or suggest when to prefer it over extraction or creation. The example shows a path usage but does not clarify 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format and example, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, permissions, or consequences beyond deletion. It meets the baseline but adds only marginal value.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return format section, and an example. No wasted words, and important details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter, clear output format, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could include edge-case behavior (e.g., missing task), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter task_name with a clear description, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description's example and return format do not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 'Delete a Windows Scheduled Task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like winops_auto_task_create and winops_auto_task_run by specifying the delete action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The example and wording imply it's for deleting scheduled tasks, but there is no comparison to sibling tools or mention of cases where it shouldn't be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds a return format example, but does not discuss edge cases, errors, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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 concise, with a single sentence, a clear return format, and an example. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple formatting utility, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, shows the return shape, and provides an invocation example. Minor gaps like error handling or large-input behavior are not critical for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for 'text' and 'indent' are already explicit (e.g., 'JSON string to pretty-print', 'Indentation spaces'). The tool description adds no further parameter context, so baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Parse and pretty-print a JSON string.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like winops_json_validate or winops_json_read by focusing on formatting.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide context on selecting it over similar JSON operations. It only gives a basic example without guidance on applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds that it flushes DNS cache (a state-changing action) and returns ipconfig output. It doesn't disclose potential side effects like clearing cached DNS entries or requiring admin privileges, but it does add some behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear return format and an example. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes a structured JSON return format. The example is minimal but sufficient. No wasted words.
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 has no parameters and a simple action, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return format and includes an example. However, it could mention prerequisites like admin rights or the fact that flushing DNS may require elevation, but overall it's adequate for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds the return format and example, which is useful for understanding the output. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, but it does provide the return structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool flushes the DNS cache and returns full ipconfig output, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like winops_net_firewall_list or winops_sys_info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for DNS troubleshooting or network diagnostics, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_sys_test_port or winops_net_firewall_list. The context is clear but exclusions are not provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'wait for running state', which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose failure handling, permission requirements, or effects on dependent services, providing only moderate added value.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a two-sentence purpose statement, a return format block, and a single-line example. Each element earns its place, and the main verb is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema provided), the description covers the core behavior, waiting, and return format. It lacks usage context and failure details, but those are partially covered by the success bool in the return format. Overall slightly above average completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly described (service_name and wait_timeout with default and range). The description includes an example but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.
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 'Restart a Windows service and wait for running state', specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like winops_svc_start and winops_svc_stop by focusing on the restart operation and its blocking behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus start/stop alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or side effects. The description merely states what it does, leaving the AI without context for choosing between this and related service tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a return format and an example, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., nonexistent group) or access requirements, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-line purpose statement, a short return format block, and an example. Every element adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with a single parameter, the description fully covers purpose, return format, and example usage. The tool is straightforward, and the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'group' is described as 'Local group name.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The example shows usage but offers no extra semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List members of a local Windows group,' which is a specific verb+resource phrase. It distinguishes from sibling tools like winops_accounts_list_groups (lists groups) and winops_accounts_list_users (lists users), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_accounts_manage_group or winops_accounts_list_groups. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over other tools. There is no mention of conditions where it would or wouldn't be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No description-annotation contradiction exists; annotations are all false, correctly signaling a mutating, side-effecting operation, and the description adds a return-format contract. However, this is a mutating, archive-parsing operation where important behaviors are undisclosed: whether target_dir is auto-created, what happens on overwrite, whether .tar.gz variants are accepted, path-traversal safety, and failure semantics (partial extraction, cleanup). The return format and example add value but don't cover these behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact return-format block and a usable example—no filler. Minor deduction for the return format section being partially redundant with the existing output schema and a minor whitespace/formatting quirk where the Examples section runs together with the code block delimiter.
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 simplicity (2 required params, both documented, an example, and an output schema available), the description is reasonably complete for a Tier-B operation. Output schema exists so the return format in the description is a bonus. The main gap is undiscussed edge behavior for a mutating operation—overwrite policy, directory creation, and supported TAR variants—so it falls short of excellent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters briefly documented ('Archive to extract.', 'Destination directory.'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The example adds modest value by demonstrating concrete Windows-style paths and positional argument usage, but the description doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema already states.
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?
"Extract a ZIP or TAR archive to a directory" pairs a specific verb (Extract) with a specific resource (ZIP or TAR archives) and destination, making the function instantly clear. It distinguishes itself from its archive-related siblings (winops_archive_list, winops_archive_create, winops_archive_add, winops_archive_expand_cab) since none of those cover extraction of ZIP/TAR formats.
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?
Usage context is only implied through the verb 'Extract' and the provided example, with no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the close sibling winops_archive_expand_cab (which could overlap in the 'extract/expand archives' space), explicit exclusions or cross-references would help. The example does demonstrate the call signature, which provides some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds a return format plus a usage example. However, it omits important behavioral context like admin privilege requirements, duplicate-rule_name behavior, and side effects of action='block'.
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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a useful return-format block and a concrete example. There is no filler, though the example uses 'firewall_add' instead of the exact tool name, which is a minor inconsistency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and return format cover most invocation details, but the description lacks usage guidance and operational caveats such as admin requirements, duplicate-rule name handling, and the potentially disruptive effect of a block action. For a mutating firewall tool, these are material 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the example meaningfully shows how rule_name, direction, action, and port combine in a realistic call. It does not illustrate the program parameter, but this is covered by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a Windows Firewall rule' with a specific verb and resource, and the example reinforces a concrete firewall-add scenario. It is distinct from sibling tools like winops_net_firewall_list and winops_net_firewall_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as winops_net_firewall_delete or other network tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It adds a return format that clarifies outcome, but failure behavior (e.g., rule not found) isn't disclosed. The annotations cover the key safety profile, making this adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear return format and example. It's well-structured with a heading and code block, avoiding fluff. The example could be trimmed but doesn't harm readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one param, destructive annotations, output format), the description covers the essentials. It lacks error handling details, but for a direct delete operation, the provided return format and annotations suffice. It's complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for rule_name, so the description doesn't need to explain the parameter. The example provides a minor usage clarification but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a Windows Firewall rule by name, with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list and add, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., rule existence, admin rights). The example implies usage but doesn't state context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds error behavior (success=false if PID not found) and shows the return structure, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise and well-structured with a return format and example, no wasted words. Could be a bit more compact but effective.
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?
The description covers purpose, return format, error handling, and an example, which is complete for a simple read-only tool. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation but given low complexity, it's adequate.
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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage) with descriptions. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides; it mentions the metrics returned but doesn't elaborate on parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('process'), and specifies the exact metrics (CPU, memory, thread count, I/O counters). This is clear, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like winops_process_info or winops_process_resources, though the metric list helps. Minor deduction for lack of explicit distinction.
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 retrieving performance metrics of a process, and provides an example call. However, it doesn't give explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like winops_process_info or winops_process_resources. There's no mention of conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds the behavior of waiting for running state and the return format, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., service dependencies, failure behavior if service doesn't start, or whether it blocks until timeout). The return format is provided, which adds transparency, but the description could be richer about what happens on failure or timeout.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a return format section and an example, which are useful. The example is minimal but effective. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the description from the return format), but overall it's efficient with no wasted words.
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 (2 params, output schema provided, annotations present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the main behavior (start and wait), provides the return format, and gives an example. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge-case behavior, but for a service start tool, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (service_name and wait_timeout) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the example using service_name='wuauserv' and implies the wait_timeout behavior via 'wait for it to reach running state', but it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a Windows service and wait for it to reach running state.' This is a specific verb (start) plus resource (Windows service) and includes the key behavior of waiting for running state, which distinguishes it from siblings like winops_svc_stop, winops_svc_restart, and winops_svc_status.
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 (starting a service and waiting for it to be running) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_svc_restart or winops_svc_stop. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like administrative privileges or that the service must exist. The examples provide a basic usage pattern but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as prerequisites, permanent effects, or failure conditions. It simply restates the core destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a structured return format and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, contains no fluff, and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations and output schema are sufficient. It does not cover edge cases like non-existent users or permission requirements, but these are not critical for such a minimal tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the username parameter already described as 'User account name to delete.' The example shows usage but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a local Windows user account,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_user, set_password, and list_users.
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 use case is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description relies on the obvious purpose rather than providing additional usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, including destructiveHint: false contrary to expectations for a grant operation. The description does not disclose that granting might change existing permissions or is potentially destructive if permissions override. It provides no warnings or prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations, but it misses important 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?
Description is very concise: two sentences plus a code block for return format and example. No fluff, well-structured with headers.
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?
Has output schema, so return format is covered. But lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., admin rights), effect on existing permissions, and whether the permission replaces or adds. For a mutation tool with destructiveHint false, more context 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds a return format example and further illustrates usage with an example, but does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3, and the example adds minor value, so 4 is reasonable.
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?
Clear verb (Grant) and resource (file/directory). Distinguishes from siblings like winops_acl_revoke (revoke) and winops_acl_get (get). However, it doesn't explicitly state the permission level semantics beyond the enum, but the enum covers that. Purpose is 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description includes a return format and examples, implying usage for granting permissions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools like revoke and get provide context. Clear but no explicit when-not-to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description adds an output shape ('success', 'path', 'archive_type', 'file_count') and an example. However, it does not disclose important behaviors like whether an existing archive is overwritten or whether directories are included recursively.
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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose, a minimal return-format block, and a single focused example. No filler or redundant prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create-archive tool with a clear output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the core contract adequately. It lacks only optional nuance such as overwrite behavior and sibling-tool differentiation, but the provided example and schema are enough for typical invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the example, which illustrates path and source_files values. It does not clarify parameter nuances beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states 'Create a new ZIP or TAR archive from a list of files/directories,' naming the action, resource, input, and supported formats. The 'new' qualifier differentiates it from sibling archive tools like winops_archive_add, winops_archive_extract, and winops_archive_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as winops_archive_add or winops_archive_extract; usage is only implied by 'Create a new'. The example shows invocation but provides no selection guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides a return format JSON indicating success and task_name, which adds some transparency. However, it does not discuss behavior like idempotency, whether the task is overwritten if it exists, or potential side effects. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which gives a baseline; the description adds only the return format, not much else.
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 concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose, a structured return format, and a short example. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the inclusion of an example with JSON formatting is useful but adds length; overall it is still well-structured and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema and annotations are present, the description adds the return format and an example, which is helpful. However, it does not mention important operational details like whether the schedule can be combined with other parameters, how recurring tasks are handled, or any error conditions. For a moderate-complexity tool, it could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The tool description itself adds an example that shows usage, which is helpful but not essential. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra meaning is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a Windows Scheduled Task, which is a specific, actionable verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like winops_auto_task_delete, winops_auto_task_run, and winops_auto_task_list, which handle other aspects of scheduled tasks. The example further clarifies the intended usage.
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 includes an example that shows how to call the tool with task_name, task_path, and schedule. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., administrative privileges) or conditions where the task creation might fail. The example provides clear context, but exclusions are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds the return format ('{"success": bool, "wmi_class": str, "result": str}') and examples, which clarifies the response shape. It does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permission requirements), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct yet complete: a one-sentence purpose, a clearly formatted return format block, and two illustrative examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, optional-parameter tool with good annotations and an output format specified, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, shows how to call it with examples, and defines the return JSON. Minor gaps include lack of mention of WMI namespace default (covered in schema) and no note about potential output size, but these are non-critical. Overall, the agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('WMI class to query' and 'WMI namespace'). The description's examples add concrete values (e.g., 'Win32_Processor') and show the call syntax, which enriches semantics slightly. However, it doesn't go beyond what the schema and defaults already imply, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Query a WMI class and return the raw output.' The verb is specific, the resource is a WMI class, and the output type is described. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific Windows resources (processes, services, accounts) or command execution (winops_cmd_powershell).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to query a WMI class and get raw output. It provides examples with Win32_Processor and Win32_BIOS, demonstrating typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like winops_cmd_powershell, nor does it list exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a return format and an example, which provides some behavioral context, but it does not disclose additional traits beyond what annotations and the output schema 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose, a return format block, and a clear example. Every element earns its place with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter validation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It includes the return format and an example. The only minor gap is not specifying JSON strictness (e.g., whether trailing commas or comments are accepted), but this is not critical for basic validation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'text' is already described as 'JSON string to validate.' The description's example reinforces the parameter usage but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate whether a string is valid JSON.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling JSON tools like winops_json_read, winops_json_write, and winops_json_format, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance is given for choosing between this and related JSON tools, though the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior: concrete threshold values for degraded/unhealthy, the conditional sampling_advice field, and the returned status shape. It 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized: one-sentence summary, return format code block, compact examples, and bullet notes. It is front-loaded and each section earns its place without filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional boolean param, no nested schema), and the description provides thresholds, return format, and examples. It does not elaborate on the contents of sampling_advice or how 'detailed' is reflected in the response, but those are minor gaps for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter, 'detailed', is already fully described in the schema ('Include full disk usage breakdown'). The description's example health(detailed=True) demonstrates usage but does not add significant semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Check system health against CPU/memory/disk thresholds.' It clearly conveys a read-only health assessment tool and includes status categories, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like system_health_card or winops_perf_system.
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 main sentence implies when to use it (when a CPU/memory/disk health check is needed), and the threshold notes clarify interpretation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative (e.g., winops_perf_system for raw metrics) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the return format (JSON with success, path, user) and providing an example, which helps the agent understand the tool's 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return format and example are useful but add some length; however, they are directly relevant to usage. No wasted words.
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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, return format, and an example. It could mention that this is a destructive operation (though annotations cover that) or clarify that it only affects explicit permissions, not inherited ones, but the current text is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (path and user). The description adds minimal extra meaning—it doesn't clarify path format (e.g., Windows vs. UNC) or user format (e.g., domain\user). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Revoke all explicit permissions for a user or group on a file or directory.' It uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (file/directory), and the scope ('all explicit permissions') distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_acl_grant and winops_acl_get.
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 revoking permissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_acl_grant or winops_acl_inheritance. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing existing explicit permissions) 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.
Behavior3/5
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 the return format and examples, but does not disclose additional behavioral specifics such as default user scope or potential performance. Since annotations lower the bar, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear heading, return format, and two short examples. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description includes the return format and examples, and the schema fully covers parameter details. The output schema is also present, so no further explanation of return values is needed. The description is complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both all_users and name_filter. The description adds examples showing how to use them, but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List installed AppX/Windows Store packages', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the sibling winops_apps_uninstall. The return format and examples reinforce the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The examples imply usage (name_filter, all_users), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied, but it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds a return format example. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential permission requirements or performance implications beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The return format and example sections are useful but the example uses 'task_list()' which is inconsistent with the actual tool name, potentially confusing agents. No excessive verbosity.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an existing output schema (though not shown). The description provides a return format and example, which is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is adequate. It does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, but for a straightforward listing operation, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-related information, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The return format information is not directly related to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all Windows Scheduled Tasks', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_auto_task_create and winops_auto_task_run. It unambiguously identifies the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and purpose. No guidance on when not to use it is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the structured return shape with a has_more flag, and explicit failure semantics (success=false when pywin32 is missing or log_name is invalid). This is meaningful information the annotations cannot convey.
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 organized with compact markdown sections (Return Format, Examples, Errors) with no filler. The return format block is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, and the Errors section could have been merged into a single line, but the overall structure is front-loaded and every section earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, fully annotated tool with complete parameter schemas and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers invocation examples, failure cases, and the return contract. Minor gaps remain — it does not clarify what `has_more` semantically means for pagination or state the ordering of returned events (e.g., newest first).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's examples reinforce parameter usage (e.g., combining time_range_hours with max_events, using event_id without other filters) but introduce no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Query recent events from a Windows Event Log channel'), clearly stating the tool reads event data from a named channel. It distinguishes itself from its event-log siblings: winops_evtlog_clear mutates, winops_evtlog_export writes, and winops_evtlog_list enumerates channels, whereas this tool retrieves event records.
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?
Usage context is implied by the description ('recent events', 'filter by event ID', examples) and the examples demonstrate valid calls. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over winops_evtlog_export or winops_evtlog_list, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites (other than the error note about pywin32).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds limited behavioral context: it specifies 'system-wide' scope and gives a return format example, which is helpful but does not go beyond annotations significantly. It does not contradict annotations, so no issue.
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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the '## Examples' section with 'resources()' is a minimal and somewhat confusing code-like snippet that adds little value. It is not verbose, but the example could be more illustrative (e.g., showing actual output values). Overall, it is reasonably structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only, no-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is measured (CPU and memory), provides a return format JSON example, and is supported by rich annotations. It lacks details like units or sampling specifics, but these are not critical for a snapshot tool. The example is superficial but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter-specific info, but that is appropriate given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Snapshot system-wide CPU and memory utilisation.' It specifies a concrete verb ('snapshot') and resource ('CPU and memory') at the system level, effectively distinguishing it from process-specific siblings like process_list_card or winops_perf_process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining a resource snapshot but offers no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like winops_perf_system or system_health_card. The provided return format and example give some context but no guidance on when to prefer this over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by documenting the exact return format and the dependency error when pywin32 is not installed.
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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for return format, examples, and errors. Every element serves a purpose and there is no redundant prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description provides the full return JSON structure, practical examples, and error conditions. For a simple two-parameter list operation with strong annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both filter_status and include_system. The description's examples demonstrate usage patterns but do not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists Windows services with optional status filtering. It distinguishes from start/stop/restart operations, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling winops_svc_status, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Examples show valid invocations with filter_status and include_system, implying when to use those options. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over winops_svc_status nor when not to use it, leaving the usage context only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (non-readOnly) operation, and the description adds the return format and examples. It does not disclose edge cases like non-existent groups/users or permission requirements, but it provides enough context beyond annotations to be minimally useful.
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 concise with a clear first line stating the purpose, followed by structured sections for return format and examples. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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 simplicity, the description covers the essential information: purpose, return format, and two examples. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites but is complete enough for a straightforward additive/removal action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add or remove a user from a local Windows group' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like winops_accounts_add_user (creating a user account) and winops_accounts_remove_user (deleting a user) by focusing on group membership.
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 context is clear—this tool manages group membership rather than user accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and the examples show concrete usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds the return format (success, path, target_dir) and the example, but does not disclose side effects like directory creation, overwrite behavior, or error handling. Some value is added beyond annotations, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a structured return format and example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every element serves a function without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no nested objects), the description provides the core purpose, an example, and the return format. It omits potential edge cases or dependency details, but for a straightforward expansion operation, this is largely complete.
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 descriptions for both parameters are minimal ('Path to the .cab file.' and 'Destination directory.'), but the description supplements them with a concrete example showing Windows path formats. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.
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 explicitly states the verb 'expand' and the resource 'Windows CAB archive', using 'expand.exe' for clarity. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like winops_archive_extract by specifying the CAB format and the underlying utility.
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 CAB archives via the example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., winops_archive_extract for other formats). No mention of when-not or alternatives is provided, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation; the description adds that the task runs immediately and documents the return shape ({success, task_name}). It does not warn about possible side effects of running the scheduled task or mention auth/rate considerations, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sections (purpose, return format, example) with zero filler; the example is compact and useful, and the JSON return format is clearly presented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter imperative tool, the description plus schema and annotations is sufficient: it states the action, the parameter, and the return value. It does not cover asynchronous behavior or side-effect caveats, but those are not essential for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Task name to trigger immediately'); the description adds an example value but no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies because schema description coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('Windows Scheduled Task') and specifies immediate execution, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as winops_auto_task_list, winops_auto_task_create, and winops_auto_task_delete.
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?
It conveys a clear use case: manually run an existing scheduled task now. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when invocation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are present but mostly default-false; the description adds the source-prefix direction rule and return format. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, dependency on a running container, or permissions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a concise direction table, return format, and two examples. Every section earns its place and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter copy tool, the description covers the main semantics, direction behavior, and return value, especially with output schema present. Minor gaps around error/overwrite behavior prevent a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the prefix formats and required fields. The description's examples reinforce usage but do not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy files between the host and a Docker container.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like winops_container_exec by focusing on file transfer with an explicit direction model.
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 explains the two possible direction patterns with concrete examples, making when to use the tool clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the copy-vs-execute distinction is implicit from the sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the file is created if missing, which is not in annotations. It also provides the return format (success, path, updated_keys) useful for agents, though also present in the output schema. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single sentence for the main purpose, followed by a compact return format and a short example. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior. The inclusion of an example and return format rounds it out. Lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but the simple nature and coverage make it adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (data, path, indent). The description adds an example but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The high coverage means the schema carries the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Deep-merge patch data') on a specific resource ('existing JSON file'), and notes 'creates file if missing', adding scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like read/write/validate via the 'deep-merge' terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like winops_json_write. It implies usage via 'deep-merge' and 'patch', but there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria. The example hints at partial updates but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it creates parent directories as needed and documents the return format. It does not explicitly state whether an existing file is overwritten or merged, but annotations already communicate the mutation and idempotency profile, and the description adds useful practical 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short return format and a concrete example. Every section earns its place without repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter write tool, the description adequately covers purpose, example usage, return format, and a notable side effect (directory creation). The only meaningful omission is explicit overwrite/merge semantics, but the included information is sufficient for typical selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (path, data, indent) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to re-explain them. The example helps clarify invocation, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write data to a JSON file', clearly identifying the tool as a file-write operation. This distinguishes it from sibling JSON tools like json_read, json_validate, and json_patch, and the added 'creating parent directories as needed' gives useful scope.
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 intended use is implied by the action itself: use this when you want to persist data as JSON. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives like json_patch for partial updates, so the usage context is only inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key behavioral trait that it waits for the service to reach the stopped state, with a timeout parameter. It also discloses the return format. This goes beyond the structured annotations and is valuable for agent expectation management.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sections plus an example, with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives return format and a minimal example. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation, the description is largely sufficient: it covers the action, the wait behavior, the parameters (through schema), and the return format (inline). It lacks discussion of error handling or permissions, but these are not critical for a basic stop operation and can be inferred from the return status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'service_name' and 'wait_timeout' are documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example (stop(service_name='wuauserv')) which illustrates usage but does not clarify additional semantics or edge cases not already captured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific action: 'Stop a Windows service and wait for it to reach stopped state.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_svc_start, winops_svc_restart, and winops_svc_status by naming the exact operation (stop) and the expected outcome.
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 (stop a service) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as administrative privileges, or scenarios where this tool is preferable to winops_svc_restart. The example is helpful but does not address selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the JSON return format and providing usage examples, increasing transparency about output and usage. It 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, containing a one-sentence purpose, the return format, and two examples. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple TCP connectivity test, the description, combined with the output schema and parameter definitions, is sufficiently complete. It lacks discussion of network-level nuances, but such details are not necessary given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% schema description coverage, each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds semantic value through concrete examples (e.g., test_port(host='8.8.8.8', port=53)), which helps clarify expected usage beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test TCP connectivity to a host:port' uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('TCP connectivity to a host:port'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like winops_net_diag by focusing on a targeted connectivity check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as winops_net_diag or other network diagnostic tools. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it documents non-blocking execution via asyncio.to_thread, the 10s sampling cap, safety guards against Linux-isms and em dashes, output truncation, and the full return format. This far exceeds the minimal annotation signals.
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 lead sentence, a return-format block, examples, and bulleted notes. Each section adds value, though the return format block is somewhat redundant with the first sentence and adds a bit of extra length.
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 output schema, examples, and behavioral notes, the description covers the essential aspects of invoking and interpreting this tool. It could be more complete by mentioning command-provenance or working-directory defaults, but it is largely sufficient for a command-execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example usage for command and working_directory and a truncation note, but does not meaningfully elaborate on stdin_data, max_output_size, or timeout_seconds beyond what the schema already states.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a CMD (cmd.exe) command' and names the return fields (stdout, stderr, exit_code, execution_time). This clearly distinguishes it from the PowerShell sibling tool and other command-execution tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Examples and safety notes imply usage context, and the explicit 'cmd.exe' wording helps differentiate from winops_cmd_powershell. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior not visible there: exact return shape, limit bounds, and the has_more flag. This is a helpful addition, though no mention is made of permission or edge cases around SYSTEM processes beyond the schema.
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 with a format block, examples, and a short note. It is concise, readable, and each section adds value without unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, but the description provides a structured return format and explains pagination-like behavior with `count == limit` and `has_more`. This is complete enough for an agent to understand what will be returned and what constraints apply.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the parameters with examples and explains the limit/has_more relationship, but it does not add substantially new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List running Windows processes') and the resource scope (CPU and memory usage). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like process_list_card or process_resources, but the verb+resource is clear.
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 examples provide clear usage patterns with name_filter and include_system, and the note about limit/has_more sets expectations. However, it does not explain when to choose this over process_list_card or process_info, so alternatives are not explicitly covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value beyond annotations by documenting the return format {success, path, raw_acl}, revealing that output is a raw ACL string with a success flag. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations; they align consistently.
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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a compact return format code block, and a single illustrative example. Every line earns its place with zero filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary verb for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It documents the return contract and example usage. The only minor gap is lack of error-handling context (e.g., behavior when the path doesn't exist or access is denied), but this doesn't detract significantly given the annotations and output schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'path' parameter documented as 'File or directory path to inspect.' The description's example `get(path="C:\\Users\\Public")` adds a small amount of value by demonstrating Windows path escaping and format, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource construct ('View the ACL (Access Control List) for a file or directory') that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like winops_acl_grant, winops_acl_revoke, and winops_acl_inheritance, positioning itself as the read/view operation within the ACL family.
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 verb 'View' and the code example get(path="C:\\Users\\Public") clearly imply this is the read-only ACL inspection tool versus the modification siblings (grant/revoke). The example provides concrete invocation guidance. However, the description doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria ('use this instead of X'), relying on sibling names for that context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false (a write operation) and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral detail by stating the archive must already exist (existing ZIP), listing the return format, and noting the ZIP-only limitation. This goes beyond annotations by providing the output structure and format constraints, though it doesn't cover error cases or overwrite behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clear markdown for return format and example, and includes a critical note about ZIP-only support. Every sentence serves a purpose: the return format helps agents parse output, the example demonstrates correct syntax, and the note prevents misuse. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return format, an example, and a key limitation (ZIP-only). It doesn't explicitly address edge cases like archive nonexistence or failure behavior, but these are implied by 'existing' and the return format's success flag. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema in the description, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: path as 'Existing ZIP archive path.' and source_files as 'Files to add to the archive.' The description does not add semantics beyond these, except for the example showing usage. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 applies; the example is helpful but doesn't introduce new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add files to an existing ZIP archive.' It specifies a specific verb (add), resource (existing ZIP archive), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'Only ZIP archives are supported for add. Use create for TAR.' This is a crisp, specific purpose that differentiates from create/extract/list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it says to use this tool for adding to an existing ZIP archive, and explicitly gives an alternative for TAR archives ('Use create for TAR'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it for other archive operations like extract, but the main purpose is unambiguous. This offers solid guidance with a named alternative, though not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact return format (fields like cpu_percent, num_threads) and error handling (returns success=false for non-existent PID). This goes beyond the annotation coverage, though it doesn't mention rate limits or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line purpose, a clear JSON return format block, an example call, and an error note. No fluff, well-structured with headers. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and a single parameter, the description adds a comprehensive return format and error behavior illustrationaine. It covers the essential details for an agent to invoke and interpret results without an output schema. The error case is explicitly documented. For a simple one-parameter read operation, this is quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the pid parameter as 'Process ID to inspect.' With 100% parameter coverage in the schema, the description doesn't need to elaborate. The return format implicitly clarifies what pid is used for, but no extra semantic is added beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get detailed information for a single process by PID', which is a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from siblings like process_list (which likely lists processes) and process_resources (resource-focused). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a single process by PID with the return format showing fields like status, memory, threads. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear. Since no exclusions are given, a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (destructiveHint=true) already signal the danger. The description adds the SIGTERM behavior (graceful), return format, and specific error cases (process not found, access denied). This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't mention side effects like child processes or timeouts.
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?
Extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, a compact return format block, a one-line example, and error conditions. No fluff; everything is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the essential: action, return format, example, and errors. It lacks detail on permission requirements (only implied via access denied) and force termination semantics, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'pid' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds an example call but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Terminate a process by PID (SIGTERM)' distinguishes it from sibling process tools (list, info, resources). The action and target are explicit 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?
Implied usage is clear: use to terminate a process by PID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but there's no competing kill tool among siblings. The error conditions provide context on when termination may fail. Lacks explicit alternative guidance but is adequate for this singular-purpose tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that dry_run=False will apply HIGH-priority fixes and queue up to 5 actions, indicating potentially destructive behavior. It also notes ctx is required and shows the return format, adding transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear lead sentence, phased breakdown, return format block, examples, and notes. It is concise and front-loaded, containing only essential information without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multi-phase autonomous hardening), the description covers the workflow, return format, examples, and key notes about dry_run behavior and context requirements. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to call it, and the output format is explicitly shown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (target enum and dry_run boolean), with 100% coverage. The description adds examples and notes about ctx, but does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs autonomous Windows security hardening with SEP-1577 sampling, and outlines three phases (inventory, audit, apply fixes). This differentiates it from the many granular winops_* sibling tools by presenting a higher-level, multi-step operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear sense of when to use it (for autonomous hardening) and includes details on dry_run vs. live mode, plus a note about requiring ctx. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the phased workflow and examples imply its purpose and appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return format and an example, which is useful context beyond the annotations and is fully consistent with them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence, a return format snippet, and an example. Every element is useful and properly structured, with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive operation, the description fully covers the purpose, return format, and usage example. Annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete. No parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'List local Windows user accounts.' This is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_accounts_list_groups or winops_accounts_group_members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The purpose is obvious from the name and description, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the note that CPU sampling blocks for sample_interval seconds in a thread pool (not the event loop). This is important for an AI agent to know because it affects execution timing, and it also clarifies conditional inclusion of network_io in the return 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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose, a compact return format block, two example invocations, and a crucial behavioral note. Every section earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only performance snapshot tool with two optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers the return format, shows invocation examples, explains the blocking behavior, and explicitly states the conditional inclusion of network_io. Annotations already cover safety, so no further behavioral disclosure 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples showing typical usage (system() and system(include_network=False, sample_interval=0.5)) and by explaining in the return format that network_io appears only when include_network=true. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema definitions.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Snapshot') and clearly enumerates the resources covered: system-wide CPU (per-core), memory, disk I/O, and optionally network I/O. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_perf_process (process-level) and winops_sys_health, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 states it snapshots system-wide metrics, which implies use for system-level performance rather than process-level. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over winops_perf_process or system_health_card. The examples show how to invoke it but not when to choose it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/read-only nature is known. The description additionally discloses the multi-step process (query System logs, snapshot processes, LLM analysis) and the requirement that `ctx` is needed for sampling. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential latency or failure modes.
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 with phases, a return format block, an example, and notes. Every element serves a purpose, including the explicit `ctx` requirement and the return type examples. It is concise yet complete, with no fluff.
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?
The description covers the essential workflow, output format, and an example, and the output schema is defined separately. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., empty event logs, LLM unavailability, time range of 'recent' System logs), but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100% coverage for the single parameter `operation_failure`, with a clear description. The tool description adds value by placing the parameter in context through the example call and by explaining the investigation workflow, which aids correct usage. This exceeds the baseline 3.
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: 'Diagnose why a Windows operation failed using event logs, process list, and LLM sampling.' This identifies a specific verb (diagnose), resource (Windows operation), and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform raw queries (e.g., winops_evtlog_query, winops_process_list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: when a Windows operation fails. It outlines the multi-phase approach, implying it should be used for end-to-end diagnosis rather than individual low-level queries. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that output is a Prefab UI card (likely read-only) with a plain text fallback, indicating non-destructive behavior. It doesn't disclose pagination or performance impact, but for a display tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and filter, second describes output format and fallback. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 no output schema and low complexity (2 optional params), the description covers purpose, filtering, and output format. It lacks detail on error handling or exact card content, but is sufficient for a simple display tool.
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 description must compensate. It explains that 'name_filter' filters by name and 'max_processes' limits the count, adding value beyond the raw schema. Though not exhaustive, it provides sufficient meaning for most use cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'display', the resource 'running processes', and the optional filter by name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'process_management' by focusing on a rich card display.
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 gives context on when to use (to display running processes, optionally filtered) and mentions fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or compare with sibling tools like 'system_health_card' for system overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint: false), but the description adds value beyond this. It discloses async execution ('Uses asyncio.to_thread — never blocks the event loop'), a critical safety cap ('ctx.sample() capped at 10s'), and output truncation behavior ('stdout/stderr truncated at max_output_size chars each'). The score isn't a 5 because it doesn't detail failure modes, exact auth/privilege requirements, or the nature of the 'em dashes' blocking.
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 single-sentence summary, a clear 'Return Format' section, useful examples, and a bulleted 'Notes' section. It's front-loaded. It loses a point for potential redundancy; the return format is fully defined in the output schema and the output truncation note partially duplicates the max_output_size parameter description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The context signals place the output schema externally. The description covers critical operational details: it's non-blocking, includes safety caps (10s sampling limit), and has safety guards against 'Linux-isms'. For a tool whose core function is to execute arbitrary commands, this level of disclosure about runtime behavior, truncation, and safeguards is contextually complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, including a clear description for each parameter. The description itself is mostly redundant with the schema (it mentions 'max_output_size' via the truncation note and shows usage of 'command' in examples). However, it does add slight context about stdout/stderr truncation behavior. This aligns with a baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a PowerShell command and return stdout, stderr, exit_code, execution_time.' It uses a specific verb ('Execute'), identifies the resource ('PowerShell command'), and delineates the outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like winops_cmd_cmd (for cmd commands) and winops_container_exec (for containers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that 'Safety guards block Linux-isms (grep, tail, rm -rf, etc.)', implicitly guiding against misuse. It also includes examples of typical usage. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the sibling list shows it's the only generic 'powershell' executor, and the note about Linux-isms clarifies it's for Windows/PowerShell tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds a concrete return format and an example, which clarifies the output behavior beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only extraction tool this is sufficient.
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 concise: two sentences, a return format block, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element adds value without unnecessary embellishment.
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?
The tool is very simple (one param), has an output schema, and the description includes the return format and an example. It does not specify behavior when no JSON is found (though the format implies found=0) or handling of malformed JSON, but these are minor gaps for such a tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'text' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds an example showing a typical call, reinforcing how to pass the unstructured text. While the schema alone would suffice, the example provides practical clarity, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.
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 function: 'Extract all valid JSON objects/arrays found in unstructured text.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling JSON tools like read, write, validate, patch, and format, which operate on structured JSON files or strings.
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 usage context is implied: it is for unstructured text containing JSON blobs. An example clarifies the input, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this over other JSON tools (e.g., when JSON is embedded in logs vs. reading from a file). The context is clear enough for a simple extraction tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (including a success flag) and an example call, which gives behavioral insight beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe error behaviors (e.g., file not found), but the return format implies error handling via the success flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, a return format block, and a short example. Every sentence earns its place. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It specifies the purpose, return format, and provides an example. Since there's no output schema defined, the description appropriately documents the return shape. It lacks error-handling details, but that might be covered by the success flag. Overall, sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema already describes the parameter 'path' as 'Path to the JSON file.' The description provides an example with the path syntax, which adds a concrete usage pattern. This is a slight enhancement over the schema, so above baseline 3.
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 'Read and parse a JSON file,' which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling tools (json_write, json_validate, json_patch, etc.) make the unique purpose obvious, and the tool name itself is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'read' and the context of sibling tools make the intended use clear. It provides a usage example and return format, which gives practical guidance. Missing explicit 'when not to use' but adequate for such a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses implementation details beyond the annotations: direct subprocess invocation, avoidance of list2cmdline mangling, and stdin_data being piped straight to the container command. It also specifies the return format. It does not add a side-effect warning for arbitrary commands, but the annotations already cover the non-destructive hint 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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a concise implementation note, a compact return-format block, and three clear examples. Every section earns its place with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having six parameters, the description covers rationale, usage patterns, threading of stdin, timeout behavior via examples, and the return contract. This is complete for a container command-execution tool and leaves no significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The examples illustrate valid combinations of container, command, stdin_data, and timeout_seconds, but the prose adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.
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 first sentence is a specific verb+resource statement: 'Execute a command inside a Docker container.' Examples further clarify it runs commands in containers, which distinguishes it from siblings like winops_container_cp (file copy) and winops_cmd_cmd/PowerShell (host command wrappers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly contrasts with alternatives: 'not CMD/PowerShell wrapper' and 'no need for `docker cp` + exec dance.' This gives agents direct when-not guidance and names the relevant alternatives, which is exactly what this dimension expects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the exact return format (success, channels, count) and an example call, providing useful behavioral 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with the purpose in the first sentence followed by a clear return format block and a simple example. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, an output schema, and annotations—the description adequately covers its behavior. The return format is specified, and the example clarifies invocation. The description is complete for an agent to select and use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It also provides the return format to help the agent understand the output.
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 'List all available Windows Event Log channels,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_evtlog_clear, winops_evtlog_query, and winops_evtlog_export, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates this tool is for enumerating event log channels, which is clear given the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as winops_evtlog_query for querying events within a channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a concrete return format and an example call, which gives useful context beyond the annotation-only safety profile, though it does not discuss 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a minimal return format and example. Every section contributes meaning without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only status tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. The return format and example make the expected behavior unambiguous.
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 schema fully documents service_name as 'Windows service name (not display name)', so the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. The example 'status(service_name="wuauserv")' adds a small but useful practical usage pattern beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the current status of a Windows service.' This clearly scopes it to checking a single service state and distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_svc_list, winops_svc_start, and winops_svc_stop.
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 makes the use case clear: querying the current status of one Windows service. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of the highest level of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. It adds value by specifying the return format and elevation requirement, which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict anything, and the inclusion of an example and notes provide useful context beyond the structured fields.
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-organized with a brief opening sentence, a return format section, an example, and concise notes. Every sentence adds value (prerequisite, elevation, return structure), with no fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the purpose and then provides necessary details.
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 moderate complexity (2 params, destructive action, no output schema beyond description), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to get the required parameter, elevation conditions, and return format. It doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., package not found), but that is acceptable given the annotations and schema. It's complete enough for an agent to use safely.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (package_name and all_users). The description enhances this with an example call and links package_name to the source tool, plus implicit elevation context for all_users. This goes beyond the bare schema, earning a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Uninstall an AppX/Windows Store package by its PackageFullName.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like winops_apps_list (listing) and winops_process_kill (process termination), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Get PackageFullName from winops_apps/list.' and notes elevation requirement for all-user/system packages, effectively telling the agent prerequisites and conditions. This is explicit and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses the dual rendering (Prefab UI or plain text fallback) which is key behavioral information for an agent to anticipate results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states what it does, second explains return format. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description fully compensates by detailing output content and format behavior. Complete for a simple read-only card tool.
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?
No parameters (schema has empty properties). Description adds meaning by listing the metrics shown, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.
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?
Description clearly states verb (Display), resource (system health card), and specific contents (CPU, memory, disk IO stats). Distinct from sibling tools like process_list_card and windows_performance which focus on different data.
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?
Description implies use when needing a quick overview of system health metrics. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but with 0 parameters and clear purpose, context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is affected ('all events'), which log channel types are targeted, and the administrative privilege required. This provides the added context of auth needs and destruction scope that annotations alone do not fully convey.
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 front-loaded with the primary action, then provides only essential supporting details: privilege requirement, return format, and an example. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the target, the required privilege, the return format, and provides an example. The output schema is also reflected in the return format section, so the agent has all necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes log_name as 'Log channel to clear' with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to restate it. The example 'clear(log_name="Application")' adds concrete value by showing a real channel name and the expected invocation format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Clear all events from a Windows Event Log channel.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like winops_evtlog_query, winops_evtlog_list, and winops_evtlog_export, all of which are non-destructive.
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 clearly states the action and a key prerequisite ('Requires Administrator'), giving enough context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive nature and simple purpose make the usage context obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-operations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![windows-operations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sandraschi/windows-operations-mcp'

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