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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it creates an entry in kiota-config.json, but it does not address side effects like overwriting existing entries, whether the config file must already exist, validation of the OpenAPI path, or any permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds specificity with the configuration file mention, making it appropriately concise.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, conflict handling, or how this command integrates with the other kiota commands, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: adding a new API client configuration and creating an entry in the workspace's kiota-config.json. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiota_client_edit and kiota_client_remove.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiota_client_edit or kiota_client_generate. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or what happens if a client with the same name already exists, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool modifies configuration without regenerating code, which is useful context. Yet it does not elaborate on side effects, validation, or whether changes are persisted immediately, leaving some ambiguity about the update process.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately identify the tool's purpose and key behavior. It avoids redundant information and front-loads the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

For a configuration-editing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the notable non-behavior of not regenerating code. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that changes only affect configuration and that code generation is a separate step, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the description adds little beyond that. Mentioning 'language, output path, or other settings' maps to the schema but does not introduce new semantic details or clarify usage beyond what the schema already states.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing API client configuration in the Kiota workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'without regenerating code', which sets it apart from kiota_client_generate and implies a focus on configuration changes.

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

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

The phrase 'existing API client' indicates it is for modifying an already-created client, contrasting with kiota_client_add for new clients. 'Without regenerating code' suggests it is appropriate when only settings need changing, not for code generation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavior. It adds useful details about automatically using the --ebc flag and running kiota info, which are not in the schema. Yet it does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting or output location, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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

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

Two sentences deliver the core function and automatic behaviors without filler or repetition. The front-loaded verb 'Generate' immediately clarifies the action, making the description highly concise.

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

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

The description covers purpose and key behaviors, but given the absence of an output schema and the side-effectful nature of code generation, it could be more explicit about what the tool produces and any environment requirements. Still sufficient for a basic understanding.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'configured client,' so it relies entirely on the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Generate API client code from a configured client in the Kiota workspace.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add/edit/remove/info by focusing on code generation from an existing client.

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

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

The phrase 'from a configured client' implies a prerequisite and indicates the tool should be used after client setup. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternatives, leaving a small gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the optional cleanup of generated code files, which is a useful side-effect, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it removes configuration files only, or what the success/error response looks like.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with two clear clauses, front-loaded with the action verb 'Remove.' Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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

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

The description covers the core purpose and the optional cleanOutput behavior, but for a deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, it should also mention prerequisites, side-effects beyond code files, or return behavior. The lack of such details leaves it merely adequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that cleanOutput is optional but does not provide additional semantics for clientName. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource: 'API client configuration from the Kiota workspace.' It also mentions the optional cleanup of generated code files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kiota_client_edit or kiota_client_add.

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

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

The description implies that this tool is used when a client configuration needs to be deleted, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., kiota_client_edit for modification). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds 'Validates the downloaded specification,' which is a non-obvious behavior, but it does not disclose side effects such as file overwriting, the effect of cleanOutput, or failure handling. This is partial disclosure.

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

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

Two short sentences front-load the core action and add one behavioral detail. No redundant words or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the primary action and validation behavior. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, it's reasonably complete, though it could mention overwrite behavior or destination directory handling for full completeness.

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

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

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add param details. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Download an OpenAPI specification from a URL to a local file,' providing a specific verb, resource, and destination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (search, client operations), making its 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.

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

The description implies the tool is for fetching an OpenAPI spec before client generation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to other tools or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it relies on implied usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'query' suggests a read-only operation, and the description discloses the scope (languages, capabilities, dependencies), but it does not explain return format, how optional parameters affect results, or any operational behavior like network access or input validation.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Query') and immediately specifies the resource, making it easy to parse.

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

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

This is a simple query tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding, but it omits details about the return structure and how optional parameters alter the response, which could be important for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the results.

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

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

Schema descriptions offer 100% coverage, documenting all three parameters (json, language, descriptionPath) with types, defaults, and enums. The description adds slight context by mentioning 'languages' and 'dependencies', which maps to the language parameter, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

Description uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('information about supported languages, their capabilities, and required dependencies for an API'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kiota_search (searching) and kiota_client_* (client lifecycle operations).

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving language/dependency information but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the search is read-only, whether it hits an external service, or that it uses a cache (evidenced by the clearCache param). It only mentions the return structure.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that leads with the action ('Search for API descriptions'), followed by output details. No waste or repetition.

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

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

For a search-only tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description adequately states the return fields. However, it omits behavioral context like caching and does not relate to the rest of the Kiota workflow, which would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter clarity.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'API descriptions' and clearly states it returns a list with names, descriptions, and OpenAPI URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiota_download and kiota_client_add.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings such as kiota_download or kiota_info. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be used or any exclusions.

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