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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it 'provides a unified interface' and returns 'JSON or text', but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether operations are destructive), error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is structured with a brief overview, bullet-like categories, and separate Args/Returns sections, which is organized. However, it's somewhat verbose (e.g., 'Universal development tool for all project operations' could be tighter) and includes generic phrases like 'provides a unified interface' that don't add unique value. It's front-loaded but could be more efficient.

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

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

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and complexity from being a 'universal' tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, return formats beyond 'JSON or text', and how it integrates with siblings. For such a broad tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description lists 'operation' and '**kwargs' in the Args section, adding minimal semantics by naming them and hinting that kwargs are 'additional arguments specific to the operation'. However, it doesn't explain what 'ctx' is, provide examples of operations, or detail kwargs formats, failing to compensate for the low coverage. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 it's a 'universal development tool for all project operations' and lists categories like file operations, command execution, etc., which gives a general sense of scope. However, it's vague about what specific actions it performs (no specific verbs like 'create', 'execute', or 'analyze') and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run_mcp' or 'think', which might overlap in development contexts. It avoids tautology by not just restating 'dev', but remains overly broad.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions it covers 'all development operations', but doesn't clarify if siblings like 'run_mcp' or 'think' are alternatives or complementary, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies usage in development contexts but lacks concrete scenarios or differentiation.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('disable') but doesn't explain what 'disable' entails (e.g., stops processes, removes from lists, requires permissions), the potential effects (e.g., irreversible, temporary), or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; however, there's no wasted text, making it efficient overall.

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

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

Given the complexity of a disable operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'disable' means behaviorally, what the return value entails, or how it interacts with siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter ('name') and indicating it's for the server to disable, but doesn't clarify the format (e.g., string identifier, case sensitivity) or provide examples, failing to adequately document the single parameter beyond basic labeling.

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 verb ('disable') and resource ('external MCP server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'enable_external_server' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that would warrant a perfect score.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_external_server' or 'list_external_servers'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the server must be enabled first, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action ('Enable'), it doesn't describe what enabling entails (e.g., whether it starts the server, makes it available for use, or changes configuration), potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but somewhat redundant (e.g., 'Returns: The result of the operation' is vague). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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

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

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enabling' does behaviorally, what the return value includes, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by stating 'name: The name of the server to enable', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or how to obtain valid names (e.g., from 'list_external_servers'). This partially compensates but is insufficient given the coverage gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Enable') and resource ('an external MCP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'disable_external_server' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify what 'enabling' entails beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the server must be disabled first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_external_servers' for checking status or 'disable_external_server' for the opposite action.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('A list of available external MCP servers'), lacking details on permissions required, rate limits, whether the list is filtered or complete, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and a brief return value note. It uses two short sentences with no wasted words. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means (e.g., enabled, detected, or configured servers), the format of the returned list, or any prerequisites. For a tool with siblings that modify server states, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional value is provided, but none is required.

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's purpose: 'List available external MCP servers.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('external MCP servers'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dev' or 'run_mcp' that might also involve server operations, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'disable_external_server' or 'enable_external_server', nor does it specify contexts like checking server status before enabling/disabling. Without any usage context or exclusions, 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 provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions the tool can 'run operations' but doesn't disclose what permissions are needed, whether operations are destructive, what happens when operations fail, or any rate limits. The description is too generic to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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

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

The description is reasonably concise with clear sections for Args and Returns. However, the content is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is good but the substance is lacking, making it appear concise at the expense of being helpful.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what operations are available, what they do, what the return format looks like, or how this tool relates to the specific sibling tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective use.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides minimal parameter information. It lists parameter names (operation, server, kwargs) and mentions 'additional arguments for the operation' but doesn't explain what valid operations are, what server identifiers look like, or what format kwargs should take. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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

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

The description states 'Run operations on MCP servers' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_external_servers' or 'enable_external_server' - all could be considered operations on MCP servers. The description is vague about what makes this tool unique.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this general-purpose operation tool should be used instead of the more specific sibling tools like 'list_external_servers' or 'enable_external_server'. There's no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets auto-detection, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, side effects, or response format. The mention of 'The result of the operation' is vague and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary details, but the 'Returns' section is vague ('The result of the operation'), which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste, earning a high score.

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

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

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or detailed return values, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly. More information is needed to meet minimum viability.

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

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

The description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the parameter 'enabled' as 'Whether to enable auto-detection,' which clarifies its boolean nature and purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though not exhaustive. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here the single parameter is well-explained, justifying a score of 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set whether to auto-detect external MCP servers.' This specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('auto-detect external MCP servers'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'enable_external_server' or 'disable_external_server', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'enable_external_server' or 'disable_external_server', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for auto-detection. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction, scoring low due to minimal guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing key behavioral traits: explicitly states 'It will not obtain new information or make any changes to the repository, but just log the thought' (clarifying read-only, non-destructive nature). It also describes the tool's purpose in reasoning workflows, though it could provide more detail about how thoughts are logged or what 'enhanced analysis' might entail.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading of the core purpose. The examples are helpful but slightly verbose. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated with the narrative flow. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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

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

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the logging mechanism, how thoughts are stored/retrieved, what 'enhanced analysis' means in returns, and whether there are any constraints on thought content or length. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves some behavioral gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter 'thought' has no schema description), so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning by explaining 'thought' represents 'Your thoughts or analysis' and provides examples of what thoughts might contain (brainstorming bug fixes, analyzing test results). However, it doesn't specify format, length constraints, or structure expectations beyond the basic string type.

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

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

The description states the tool is used 'to think about something' and 'log the thought', which clarifies its purpose as a logging/analysis tool. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'think' actually means operationally, and it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from potential reasoning processes the agent might perform internally without tool invocation.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'when complex reasoning or brainstorming is needed' and gives specific examples (exploring repo for bug fixes, analyzing test results). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for appropriate usage.

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