Qiita MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions, but there is some overlap between 'list_user_items' and 'list_authenticated_user_items' which could cause confusion. Additionally, 'check_item_stock' and 'list_user_stocks' serve related but different functions, which might require careful reading to differentiate.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'create_item', 'delete_comment', 'list_tags', and 'update_template'. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without ambiguity in naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 68 tools, the count is excessive for a typical MCP server, making it overwhelming and difficult to manage. This large number suggests over-fragmentation of functionality, which can hinder agent efficiency and increase the risk of misselection.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for the Qiita domain, including CRUD operations for items, comments, tags, users, and team features. It supports full lifecycles with create, read, update, delete, and list actions, ensuring no significant gaps for agent workflows.
Average 3/5 across 68 of 68 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Follow a tag' implies a mutation action (following), but it does not specify effects (e.g., notifications, updates), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks any behavioral details, leaving the agent to guess about the tool's operation and consequences.
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 'Follow a tag', consisting of three words that directly state the action. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick parsing. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'follow'), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively. For a tool that likely modifies user state, this minimal description is inadequate.
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 the single parameter 'tag_id' documented as 'The tag ID to follow'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter format, sourcing, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow a tag' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb ('follow') and resource ('tag'), but provides no details about what 'follow' entails or distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unfollow_tag' or 'follow_user'. This minimal statement fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), conditions for use, or comparisons to related tools such as 'unfollow_tag', 'follow_user', or 'list_user_following_tags'. Without any context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a comment' implies a destructive mutation, but it does not specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., deleting associated reactions), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
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 just three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a comment') without any wasted text. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling, or return values), nor does it address permissions or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more contextual detail is 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'comment_id' documented as 'The ID of the comment'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a comment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a comment'), but fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_comment_reaction' or 'delete_item', which could cause confusion. No additional scope or specificity is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_comment' or 'get_comment'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unfollow a tag' implies a mutation operation that changes a relationship state, but it doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether this is reversible, what happens to associated data, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it maximally efficient in terms of word economy while still communicating the basic operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'unfollowing' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what permissions might be required. For a tool that presumably changes system state, more contextual information is needed for effective agent use.
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% description coverage with a single parameter 'tag_id' clearly documented as 'The tag ID to unfollow'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately high. The description implies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unfollow a tag' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it clearly indicates the action (unfollow) and target (tag), it doesn't provide any additional specificity about what 'unfollowing' means in this context or how it differs from similar operations like 'delete_tagging' or 'unfollow_user' among the sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might be related (follow_tag, unfollow_user, delete_tagging, list_user_following_tags), but the description offers no context about when this specific unfollow operation is appropriate versus other tag or user relationship management tools.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'Qiita Team only' hint suggests access restrictions but lacks detail. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 very concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too brief for a destructive operation, potentially under-specifying rather than being efficiently concise. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (permanence, permissions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. The 'Qiita Team only' hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps given the tool's complexity and risk profile.
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 the single parameter 'template_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a template'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'template' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_item' or 'delete_comment' beyond the resource type. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualifier adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Qiita Team only', which implies a usage constraint but doesn't explain what that means or when this tool is appropriate versus other deletion tools. No prerequisites, alternatives, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 5 words plus a qualification. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualification adds some context but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps in behavioral and operational information.
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 all three parameters (url_name, name, private) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and resource ('a group'), which provides basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a group can be updated (name, privacy settings) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_group' or 'delete_group'. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualification adds some specificity but doesn't fully distinguish 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), compare with similar tools like 'create_group' or 'delete_group', or indicate when this operation is appropriate versus other group management tools. The '(Qiita Team only)' hint provides some context but doesn't constitute usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether this is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. The 'Qiita Team only' hint is the only behavioral context provided.
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 at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new template') and adds only the essential restriction ('Qiita Team only'). Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a template is in this context, what happens after creation, whether there are validation rules, or what the response contains. The 'Qiita Team only' hint is helpful but insufficient for a tool that presumably creates persistent resources.
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 fully documents all three parameters (title, body, tags). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - no examples, format details, constraints, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('Create a new template') and specifies the target resource ('template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_template' or 'delete_template' beyond the basic verb, and the 'Qiita Team only' restriction is a usage constraint rather than a purpose distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Qiita Team only' which provides some context about when this tool is applicable, but it offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_template' or 'delete_template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for template creation.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation (creating a follow relationship) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens if the user is already followed. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects. The context signals show this is a simple single-parameter tool, but the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for safe 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow a user' clearly states the action (follow) and target (user), but it's vague about what 'follow' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_user_following' or 'unfollow_user'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the social relationship being created.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_user_following' (to verify status) or 'unfollow_user' (to reverse the action). The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), appropriate contexts, or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Unfollow a user' implies a mutation operation (removing a follow relationship), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens if the user isn't being followed, if it's reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error conditions, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'follow_user'. For a tool that modifies user relationships, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'user_id' documented as 'User ID to unfollow'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the work, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unfollow a user' clearly states the action (unfollow) and target (user), but it's vague about what 'unfollow' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unfollow_tag' or clarify if this is a social connection removal versus some other type of unfollowing. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be following the user first), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'remove_group_member' or 'unfollow_tag'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Add'), what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens if users are already members, or what the return value looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose and one important constraint. There's no wasted verbiage, and the key information is front-loaded. However, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding members, what errors might occur, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for safe 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('url_name' and 'user_ids') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Add members') and resource ('to a group'), with the specific constraint 'Qiita Team only' indicating it's not available for all users. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_group_member' by specifying addition versus removal, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other group-related tools like 'create_group' or 'update_group'.
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 minimal guidance - only that it's for 'Qiita Team only'. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_team_invitation' or 'list_group_members', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing admin permissions or existing group membership. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without details on authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a boolean or status. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, or what 'stocked' means in this context, making it insufficient for full agent understanding.
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 the 'item_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Check if') and resource ('the authenticated user has stocked the item'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_user_stocks' or 'list_item_stockers', which might provide similar information in different formats, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_user_stocks' or 'list_item_stockers'. The description implies it's for checking a specific item, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing tokens, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the access token is for, what permissions it grants, how long it's valid, or what the return value looks like. The context signals show this is a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, requiring more comprehensive description.
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 all three parameters (client_id, client_secret, code) with their OAuth-specific meanings. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new access token') and mechanism ('by exchanging an authorization code'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling 'create_team_access_token' which appears to be a similar tool for team contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_team_access_token' or when to use it versus other authentication methods. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Post') which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether comments are editable after creation, or what happens on success. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after posting (e.g., returns comment ID, error responses), authentication requirements, or important behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of a comment creation operation in what appears to be a social/content platform, more context is 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('item_id' and 'body') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Post a new comment') and target resource ('on an item'), with the parenthetical '(article)' providing additional specificity. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'update_comment' or 'delete_comment' by specifying 'new', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'import_comment' or 'create_project_comment_reaction'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'import_comment' or 'create_comment_reaction' in the sibling list.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether the group becomes immediately active, or any rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is helpful but 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every part of the description earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response contains, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is valuable but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for a write operation.
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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also includes a platform constraint ('Qiita Team only') which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'delete_group' beyond the basic verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication requirements), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'list_groups'. The 'Qiita Team only' note is a platform constraint but not usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or whether this creates a draft or published item. It lacks critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address authentication needs, error conditions, response format, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Qiita item (article)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_item' or 'update_item', but the verb 'Create' versus 'import' or 'update' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_item' or 'update_item'. The description simply states what it does without context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Revoke' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but the description doesn't specify permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to systems using the token. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what permissions are needed, whether the action is reversible, what systems might be affected, and what the response contains. Given the tool's potential impact, more behavioral and safety information is warranted.
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 the single parameter 'access_token' documented as 'Access token to revoke'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as token format or source. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Revoke an access token' clearly states the verb ('revoke') and resource ('access token'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_team_access_token' or 'create_access_token', which would require specifying scope or contrasting with creation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_team_access_token' or what happens after revocation. It mentions neither prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights) nor consequences (e.g., token becomes unusable), leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., comments or reactions), or error conditions. This leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon successful deletion (e.g., confirmation message, status code), error responses, authentication requirements, or side effects. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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 the single parameter 'item_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or where to find item IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a Qiita item'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_comment or delete_template, which would require mentioning it specifically targets items rather than other entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ownership or specific permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose other tools like update_item instead. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, this omission is significant.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Revoke' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, if revocation is permanent, what happens to systems using the token, or any rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails operationally, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The context demands more behavioral disclosure than provided.
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 the single parameter 'team_access_token' with description 'Team access token to revoke'. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?
The description 'Revoke a team access token' clearly states the action (revoke) and resource (team access token) with a specific verb. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_access_token' by specifying 'team' access token, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_access_token' or other deletion tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for token revocation.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Cancel' implying a destructive action, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires admin permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens if the invitation is already accepted, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and constraint ('Qiita Team only'), making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Cancel'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, return values, or confirmation of success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
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 the parameter 'email' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format requirements or that it must match an existing invitation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('pending team invitation'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_team_access_token' or 'remove_team_member', which also involve deletion/removal operations in the team context.
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 minimal guidance by specifying 'Qiita Team only', indicating a platform restriction. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_team_invitations' to identify pending invitations first, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., admin permissions).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction but doesn't describe what 'expand' actually does operationally - whether it's a read-only transformation, creates something new, modifies existing data, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear basic functionality. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the core action first more explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'expand' means operationally, what the output looks like, whether this is a transformation or creation operation, or what happens to the expanded result. The Qiita Team restriction is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'body and tags' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('Expand template variables') and the target resources ('body and tags'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_template' or 'update_template' - it only mentions the Qiita Team restriction rather than explaining how this differs from other template-related operations.
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 minimal guidance with 'Qiita Team only' indicating a platform restriction, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_template' or 'update_template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or what makes this tool distinct from other template operations in the sibling list.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error handling, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of interacting with comments in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, with 'comment_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific comment by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_item' or 'get_user' beyond the resource type, missing explicit 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_comment' over 'list_item_comments' or how it relates to 'update_comment' or 'delete_comment'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction, which is useful behavioral context, but fails to disclose other critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific group by URL name') and appends a restriction ('Qiita Team only'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. It could be slightly more structured by separating the restriction into a second sentence for clarity, but overall it's concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and a key restriction, but lacks details on authentication, response format, error cases, and sibling differentiation. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
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 the single parameter 'url_name' fully documented in the schema as 'Group URL name'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'URL name' is, provide examples, or clarify the Qiita Team context for the parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific group'), and specifies the lookup method ('by URL name'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_groups' which presumably lists multiple groups, nor does it mention the Qiita Team restriction in relation to siblings. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 minimal guidance with 'Qiita Team only', indicating a platform restriction, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or 'get_group_member'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what an 'item' contains, error scenarios, or authentication needs. For a read operation in a context with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 the parameter 'item_id' documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is required for retrieval, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific Qiita item by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from list operations (e.g., list_items) by specifying retrieval of a single item, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools like get_comment or get_user beyond the resource type.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an item ID), contrast with list_items for browsing, or specify error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid). The description assumes context without explicit instructions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves a template by ID and mentions a platform restriction ('Qiita Team only'), but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or redundant information. The parenthetical about 'Qiita Team only' adds necessary context without bloating the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'template' is in this context, what data is returned, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that presumably returns structured data, more context is needed despite the simple schema.
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 the single 'template_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or where to find template IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific template by ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'get_item', which could cause confusion about when to use this versus other retrieval tools.
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 mentions 'Qiita Team only', which provides some context about platform restrictions, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_templates' or 'get_item'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice or comparison to sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. 'Import' suggests data insertion, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing comments, how conflicts are handled, or what happens if timestamps are omitted. The optional nature of timestamps is mentioned, but overall behavioral context is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the most important additional detail about optional timestamps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'import' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or how it differs from 'create_comment'. The optional timestamp mention is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that timestamps are optional, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies about each parameter's purpose.
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 ('import a comment') and target resource ('on an item'), with additional context about optional timestamps. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_comment' by implying historical data import rather than new creation, though this distinction could be more explicit.
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 like 'create_comment' is provided. The description mentions optional timestamps which hints at historical data scenarios, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'import' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on duplicate items, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. The description mentions timestamp customization but doesn't explain behavioral implications of overriding system-generated timestamps.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful import, what format the response takes, error conditions, or how this tool differs from similar creation operations. The context signals show this is a 6-parameter tool with complex nested structures (tags array with objects), but the description doesn't address these complexities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description highlights the unique timestamp parameters (created_at/updated_at) which are indeed part of the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?
The description clearly states the action ('import') and resource ('item'), and specifies the unique capability of setting custom timestamps. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_item' tool, which appears to be a similar creation operation without timestamp customization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_item' or other creation tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific timestamp customization capability is appropriate.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction, which is a useful context, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of reactions with emoji and user details), pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, output structure, pagination) and does not fully guide usage beyond the Qiita Team note. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect and how to use it effectively.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'comment_id' documented as 'Comment ID'. The description does not add any further meaning about this parameter (e.g., format examples, where to find it, or validation rules). Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts from the schema's information.
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 emoji reactions') and the target resource ('on a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_item_reactions' or 'list_comment_reactions' (if present elsewhere), which would require mentioning its specific scope or constraints beyond the Qiita Team restriction.
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 includes a usage constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some context, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for reactions or comments). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which is useful context about access requirements, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (list format, pagination behavior, or data structure). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important qualification. Every word earns its place, making this an excellent example of efficient documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, the format of the response, or how pagination works. The 'Qiita Team only' note is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for effective tool use.
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 ('page' and 'per_page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'Qiita Team only' which adds important context about the required environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group' or 'list_group_members', which would have earned a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_groups' versus 'get_group' (for retrieving a single group) or 'list_group_members' (for listing members within groups). The 'Qiita Team only' note provides some context but doesn't address tool selection.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List likes on an item') without revealing any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 ('List likes on an item') - just four words that directly convey the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for proper tool usage. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks crucial context about behavioral characteristics (like pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits) and doesn't explain what the output contains. For a list operation that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps.
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 the single parameter 'item_id' clearly documented in the schema as 'Item ID'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining what constitutes a valid item ID or providing examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 likes on an item' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('likes on an item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_item_comments' or 'list_item_reactions', which have similar list-item-related patterns but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling list tools (e.g., 'list_item_comments', 'list_item_reactions', 'list_item_stockers') that might be relevant for similar contexts, but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other listing operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional search query' which hints at functionality, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output looks like. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place: 'List items' (action+resource), 'on Qiita' (context), 'with optional search query' (key capability). There's no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'items' refers to (articles? posts?), doesn't mention authentication requirements, doesn't describe the return format, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.
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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional search query' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets 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?
The description clearly states the action ('List items') and resource ('on Qiita'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the optional search capability, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_user_items', 'list_tag_items', or 'list_authenticated_user_items', which all list items with different filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that list items (e.g., 'list_user_items', 'list_tag_items'), there's no indication whether this is a general listing tool, a search-focused tool, or how it differs from other listing tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of user objects), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., user objects with what fields?), whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled. Given the lack of structured data, the description should provide more complete context for effective use.
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 fully documents all three parameters (item_id, page, per_page). The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid item_id or clarifying pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'users who stocked a specific item', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_user_stocks' or 'check_item_stock', but the specificity of 'users who stocked a specific item' provides enough differentiation for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_user_stocks' (which might list items stocked by a user) or 'check_item_stock' (which might check if a user stocked an item). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope ('Qiita Team only') but lacks critical details: whether authentication is required, if it's read-only or has side effects, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with potential access control implications.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary qualification ('Qiita Team only') without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication requirements, output format, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. The 'Qiita Team only' scope hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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 fully documents both parameters (page and per_page with defaults and constraints). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not providing extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pending team invitations') with a specific scope ('Qiita Team only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_team_memberships' or 'list_users', which could also involve team-related listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'list_team_memberships' or 'create_team_invitation', leaving usage context unclear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how pagination works, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving important contextual gaps.
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 (page and per_page) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('team memberships') with a specific constraint ('Qiita Team only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_team_invitations' or 'list_group_members', which would require more specific scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_team_invitations' or 'list_group_members'. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' as a constraint but doesn't explain what this means in practice or when other tools might be more appropriate.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Qiita Team only' as a restriction, failing to describe pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with just two words plus a parenthetical restriction, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for full understanding, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with pagination parameters. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' hint adds some context, but overall, it fails to provide sufficient information for reliable agent use.
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 ('page' and 'per_page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template' (singular retrieval) or 'create_template' (creation), which would require explicit distinction to earn a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with '(Qiita Team only)', indicating a restriction, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no mention of alternatives like 'get_template' for single template retrieval, and no context about when this tool is preferred over other listing tools. This leaves significant gaps in usage understanding.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., array of tag objects). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what data the tags include), authentication needs, or error conditions. For a list operation that might return paginated data, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 documentation for all three parameters (user_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'tags' consist of or how pagination works in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'tags that a specific user is following', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_user_followees' or 'list_user_followers', which also list user-related data but for different resources (people vs. tags).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_user_following' (which might check if a user follows a specific tag) or 'list_tags' (which might list all tags without user filtering), leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing items but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, error handling, or what 'items' entail (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a read operation with no structured safety hints.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It uses clear language without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives. It lacks context on authentication requirements, pagination details beyond schema defaults, error scenarios, and the nature of returned 'items' (e.g., data structure). For a read tool in a complex API, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 all parameters (user_id, page, per_page) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'user_id' identifies the user whose items are listed, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items posted by a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_items' (general listing) and 'list_authenticated_user_items' (self-focused), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't specify what type of 'items' (e.g., posts, comments, projects), leaving some ambiguity.
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 like 'list_items' (all items) or 'list_authenticated_user_items' (current user's items). The description implies usage for a specific user's items but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing items but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'stocked' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stocked' means, how results are structured, or any error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a user-specific scope ('by a specific user'), which aligns with the 'user_id' parameter but doesn't enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('items stocked by a specific user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_user_items' or 'list_item_stockers', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_user_items' and 'list_item_stockers' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or which scenarios warrant its use over others.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if the removal is permanent/reversible, what happens to the user's access, or any rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' note adds some context but doesn't cover key behavioral traits for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key limitation. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every element earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. The 'Qiita Team only' note adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral transparency needed for a tool that modifies group membership.
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 clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (url_name and user_id). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.
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 ('Remove') and resource ('a member from a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_group_member' by specifying removal. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'remove_team_member' beyond the 'Qiita Team only' qualifier, which is more about scope than sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which indicates a scope limitation, but doesn't explain prerequisites, permissions needed, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'remove_team_member'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether removal is reversible, what happens to the member's content/access, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key restriction. Every word earns its place with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by the platform restriction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The 'Qiita Team only' restriction is helpful but insufficient for the agent to understand the full behavioral context of this operation.
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 the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from the team'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies 'Qiita Team only' which provides important scope context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'remove_group_member', which handles a similar operation for groups rather than teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_group_member' or other team management tools. While 'Qiita Team only' indicates a platform restriction, it doesn't help the agent choose between this and similar tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The synonym 'bookmark' adds some context but insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.
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 single, clear phrase. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a helpful synonym in parentheses without wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a likely mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stocking' entails operationally (e.g., saving for later, marking as favorite), what the return value might be, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('item_id') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying an item is involved, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('stock') and the target ('an item'), with 'bookmark' providing a helpful synonym. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unstock_item' or 'list_user_stocks', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unstock_item' for removal or 'list_user_stocks' for viewing. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must be authenticated or the item must exist.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to other comment fields not mentioned. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions needed, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is missing.
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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('an existing comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_comment' and 'delete_comment' by specifying it's for existing comments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_group' or 'update_item'.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the comment ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_comment' or 'import_comment' beyond the basic verb difference.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid item_id), whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing Qiita item') and doesn't include any redundant or unnecessary information. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, what permissions are required, or how partial updates are handled. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
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 has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 5 parameters (item_id, title, body, tags, private). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the generic 'update' action. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Qiita item'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_item' (for new items) and 'delete_item' (for removal). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the item can be updated beyond the general concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_comment' or 'update_template'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing template fields not mentioned, or any rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' hint is helpful but 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the important 'Qiita Team only' qualification efficiently. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral details needed for safe invocation. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is useful but doesn't compensate for missing critical information about a write operation.
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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide extra value.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing template'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'Qiita Team only' which adds useful context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_template' or 'delete_template' beyond the update 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 minimal guidance - only mentioning 'Qiita Team only' as a constraint. It doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_template' or 'expand_template', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases for template updates.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether reactions are unique per user, or what happens on duplicate reactions. The description doesn't mention rate limits, side effects, or what the tool returns upon success/failure.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and key constraint. Every word earns its place - 'Add an emoji reaction' (action), 'to a comment' (target), '(Qiita Team only)' (platform restriction). No wasted words or redundant information.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about authentication requirements, error handling, return values, and differentiation from similar tools. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is helpful, but more behavioral context would be needed for optimal agent usage.
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 are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain valid emoji names beyond the example, comment ID format, or parameter interactions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Add an emoji reaction') and target resource ('to a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also specifies the platform constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_item_reaction' or 'create_project_comment_reaction', which perform similar reaction operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_item_reaction' or 'create_project_comment_reaction'. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which is a platform constraint but doesn't help the agent choose between similar reaction tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the tag doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection by an agent.
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 the parameter 'tag_id' fully documented in the schema (including format example like 'Ruby'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific tag'), specifying it's by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tags' by focusing on a single tag retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tags' or 'follow_tag'. It mentions 'by its ID' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing a tag ID from elsewhere) or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., what happens with invalid user_id), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what information is returned (e.g., user profile fields) or authentication requirements. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves important context unspecified.
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 fully documents the single 'user_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationship to other tools). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific user'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_authenticated_user' or 'list_users', which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_authenticated_user' (for current user) and 'list_users' (for multiple users), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about when this specific user lookup is appropriate versus other user-related tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. For a list operation with pagination parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. The parenthetical '(Qiita Team only)' is appropriately placed as a constraint modifier. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like (array of members? what fields?), how pagination works with the page/per_page parameters, or any error scenarios. The Qiita Team restriction is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 members') and target resource ('of a group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group_member' (singular) or 'list_groups', which could cause confusion about 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 description provides some context with '(Qiita Team only)', indicating a platform restriction, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group_member' or 'list_groups'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided beyond the platform limitation.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, making it minimally viable for a list tool with low 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'item_id' parameter. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'article' as the item type, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline for high 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a specific item'), specifying it's for articles. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_comment_reactions' or 'get_comment', which might also involve comments, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_comment' (for a single comment) or 'list_comment_reactions' (for reactions on comments). The description implies usage for listing comments on an item but 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List items') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the schema, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional inference.
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 all parameters (tag_id, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying what 'items' or 'articles' entail or how pagination works in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items (articles) associated with a specific tag'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_items' or 'list_user_items', which also list items but with different scopes, so it misses full sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_items' (which might list all items) or 'list_user_items' (which might list items by user), leaving the agent with no context for selection among similar listing operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sorting behavior ('popularity or name'), which is useful, but lacks details on pagination (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and sorting options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and sorting, but lacks context on authentication, rate limits, or return structure, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It meets the bare minimum but has clear gaps.
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 fully documents all parameters (page, per_page, sort). The description adds minimal value by implying sorting options ('popularity or name'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tags'), and specifies the sorting options ('in order of popularity or name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tag' (single tag) and 'list_tag_items' (items with tags). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_users' or 'list_items', which would make it a 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or compare to siblings like 'get_tag' for single tags or 'list_user_following_tags' for user-specific tags. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list'), pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 relatively simple read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (pagination behavior beyond defaults, authentication needs, error handling) that would help an agent use it effectively. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate somewhat.
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 fully documents all three parameters (user_id, page, per_page). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's implied by the tool name (that 'user_id' identifies the user whose followees are listed). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users that the specified user is following'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_user_followers' (which lists users following the specified user) or 'list_user_following_tags' (which lists tags the user follows), leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_user_followers' or 'check_user_following'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 read-only list tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, return format) that would be helpful given the pagination parameters. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (user_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users who follow the specified user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_user_followees' or 'check_user_following', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_user_followees' (which likely lists users the specified user follows) or 'check_user_following' (which might check if one user follows another). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ordering ('recently created order') which is useful behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what fields are returned. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the ordering constraint. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers what the tool does and ordering, but lacks information about authentication, return format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema for parameters and make assumptions about behavior.
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 fully documents both parameters (page and per_page with defaults and constraints). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), and specifies the ordering ('recently created order'). It distinguishes from other user-related tools like 'get_user' (singular) and 'list_user_followers' (relationships). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling list tools that might also return users in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'list_user_followers', 'list_user_items', and 'get_authenticated_user', there's no indication of when this general user listing is appropriate versus more specific user-related queries. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Check if') but does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean, JSON object), error conditions (e.g., invalid user ID, authentication failures), or performance aspects (e.g., rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or error handling, which are critical for a check operation. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully usable by an AI agent.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'user_id' parameter documented as 'User ID to check'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check if') and the resources involved ('authenticated user' and 'specified user'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'follow_user', 'unfollow_user', 'list_user_followers', and 'list_user_followees' by focusing on a binary check rather than modification or listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_user_followers' or 'list_user_followees', which could also provide following status information. It also lacks context about prerequisites, like authentication requirements or user visibility, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic function.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, whether reactions are unique per user, what happens on duplicate attempts, or any side effects. The Qiita Team restriction is helpful context but 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether reactions are user-specific or global. The Qiita Team restriction is valuable but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
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 clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (item_id and name). No examples beyond the schema's 'e.g. '+1', 'heart'' are given. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Add an emoji reaction') and target resource ('to an item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_comment_reaction' by specifying 'item' rather than 'comment', but doesn't fully differentiate from 'create_comment_reaction' in terms of when to choose one over the other.
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 some context with '(Qiita Team only)', indicating a platform restriction, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_comment_reaction' or 'delete_item_reaction'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite information is included.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this sends an email notification, requires admin permissions, has rate limits, what happens if the user already exists, or if the invitation expires. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success confirmation, invitation ID, error conditions), behavioral constraints, or side effects. The 'Qiita Team only' constraint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding of this write operation.
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 the single 'email' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema ('Email address to invite'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Invite a user') and resource ('to the team'), with the specific constraint 'by email (Qiita Team only)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_group_member' or 'list_team_invitations' by specifying it's for team invitations via email, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_team_access_token' or 'delete_team_invitation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Qiita Team only', suggesting it's for team-specific invitations rather than general user operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'add_group_member' or prerequisites such as required permissions or team membership status.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data (e.g., group members or content), or any rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one short sentence ('Delete a group (Qiita Team only)'), making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, resource, and constraint are all communicated without any wasted text, which is ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as the consequences of deletion (e.g., whether it's permanent, effects on members/items), required permissions, error conditions, or what the response contains. The 'Qiita Team only' note helps, but overall, it doesn't provide enough 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url_name' clearly documented in the schema as 'Group URL name to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the URL name. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_item or delete_comment by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_group_member, which might cause confusion about 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 description includes a contextual constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some guidance on when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like remove_group_member (which might remove members rather than delete the entire group) or provide any prerequisites or warnings about 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The 'Qiita Team only' hint adds some context but leaves critical mutation behavior unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete an emoji reaction from an item') and adds necessary qualification ('Qiita Team only') without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what is returned, error conditions), permission requirements, and side effects. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for safe agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('item_id', 'reaction_name') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('emoji reaction from an item'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_comment_reaction' by specifying 'item' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_item' or other deletion tools beyond the reaction focus.
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 includes 'Qiita Team only', which provides some context about when to use (team environment) and implies when not to use (non-team contexts). However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives (e.g., when to use vs. 'delete_comment_reaction') or provide detailed prerequisites beyond the team restriction.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the profile data includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does at a basic level. However, without annotations covering behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or response format, and given the presence of similar sibling tools, the description feels somewhat incomplete for proper contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'list_users' which might retrieve other user profiles, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_user' and 'list_users' available, there's no indication that this tool specifically retrieves the profile of the currently authenticated user rather than any arbitrary user.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error conditions (e.g., if member doesn't exist), or the format of the returned data. The description only adds the 'Qiita Team only' constraint, leaving significant gaps in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, and usage nuances. For a tool that retrieves specific data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without structured support from annotations or output schema.
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 ('url_name' and 'user_id') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'url_name' or 'user_id' represent in context or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get') and resource ('specific member of a group'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_group_members' by specifying retrieval of a single member rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'member' refers to (e.g., user membership details).
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 includes a constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_group_members' or 'get_user', nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or group access permissions. The 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe and effective use by an agent.
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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or authentication context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly. More detail is needed to compensate for the missing structured data.
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 ('page' and 'per_page') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items posted by the currently authenticated user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_items' (all items) and 'list_user_items' (items for any user), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'currently authenticated user,' suggesting it's for viewing one's own items. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_items' (all items) or 'list_user_items' (items for a specified user). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Qiita Team only', hinting at access restrictions, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or error handling. For a list operation with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary context ('Qiita Team only') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., list format, emoji types), authentication needs, or error cases. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance on behavior and output would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'item_id' documented as 'Item ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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.
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') and resource ('emoji reactions on an item'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_item_likes' or 'list_item_comments' by specifying reactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'item' refers to (e.g., article, post) or the verb 'emoji reactions' beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity.
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 includes 'Qiita Team only', which provides context on when to use it (for team-specific items). However, it doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_comment_reactions' or clarify if it's for viewing reactions before adding/removing them. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication ('authenticated user') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, sorting, or what data is returned. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings to be fully complete for an agent.
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 description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
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') and resource ('teams'), specifying that it returns teams the authenticated user belongs to. It distinguishes from generic team listing tools by focusing on user membership, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like list_team_memberships.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., list_team_memberships, list_groups), the description lacks context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other listing tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('remove bookmark from') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to the item after unstocking, or if the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification ('remove bookmark from') adds helpful context without verbosity. Every word earns its place in this well-structured description.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, or relationship to similar tools. The simplicity of the tool partially compensates for these 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% with a single parameter 'item_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is high. No additional parameter semantics are needed for this simple case.
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 ('unstock/remove bookmark from') and resource ('an item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'stock_item' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_item'.
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. While 'unstock' implies removing a bookmark/storage relationship rather than deleting the item itself (unlike 'delete_item'), this distinction isn't explicitly stated. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which adds useful context about platform restrictions, but fails to describe whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral insight.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and platform restriction but lacks details about behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values. It's minimally adequate given the simple parameter structure but leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior.
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 clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (comment_id and name). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no additional semantic context is provided.
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 ('Add an emoji reaction') and target resource ('to a project comment'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_comment_reaction' by specifying 'project comment' and 'Qiita Team only', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all 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 context with 'Qiita Team only', suggesting this tool is platform-specific. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar tools like 'create_comment_reaction' or 'create_item_reaction', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the platform restriction.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' (a platform restriction) and 'Optionally specify versions' (a behavioral nuance), but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add'), permission requirements, error handling (e.g., duplicate tags), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Add a tag to an item') and appends key constraints ('Qiita Team only') and optional features ('Optionally specify versions') concisely.
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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and platform restriction but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens on success/failure, tag limits) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation.
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 parameter descriptions in the schema (item_id, name, versions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it reiterates that versions are optional but doesn't explain semantics like tag naming rules, version format implications, or item_id sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a tag') and target ('to an item'), with the specific constraint 'Qiita Team only' indicating platform scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'delete_tagging' by being the creation counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tag-related tools like 'follow_tag' or 'list_tags'.
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 tagging items in Qiita Team, with optional version specification. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_item' (which might handle tags differently) or prerequisites (e.g., authentication, item existence). The 'Qiita Team only' note provides some context but no detailed exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive mutation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., trying to delete a non-existent reaction), or what happens on success. The 'Qiita Team only' note is helpful context but insufficient for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just one sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an emoji reaction from a comment') and includes the important contextual restriction ('Qiita Team only') efficiently. Every element 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some context but lacks important behavioral details. The 'Qiita Team only' restriction adds value, but without information about permissions, error handling, or success responses, the description feels incomplete for a tool that permanently modifies data.
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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (comment_id and reaction_name). According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 ('Delete') and target resource ('emoji reaction from a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_comment or delete_item_reaction by specifying it's for comment reactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'Qiita Team only' restriction as part of the core purpose, which slightly reduces specificity.
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 some contextual guidance with the 'Qiita Team only' restriction, which helps determine when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like delete_item_reaction or provide any guidance about prerequisites (e.g., needing to have added the reaction first). The 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens if the tagging doesn't exist, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Remove a tag from an item') and includes necessary qualification ('Qiita Team only') without redundancy. Every element 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a platform constraint but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, error conditions, or authentication requirements. While concise, it's incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
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 ('item_id' and 'tagging_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (like explaining what constitutes a valid ID or the relationship between items and taggings). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a tag') and target ('from an item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_tagging' and 'delete_item' by focusing on tag removal rather than creation or item deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar operations like 'unfollow_tag' which deals with user-tag relationships rather than item-tag relationships.
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 includes a contextual constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some guidance about when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_item' (if tags can be modified that way) or provide explicit exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a token, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements beyond the parameters, rate limits, token expiration, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and mechanism without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an OAuth token creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., security implications, error handling) and does not explain return values, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (client_id, client_secret, code) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 the specific action ('Create a new team access token') and the mechanism ('by exchanging an authorization code'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_access_token' (likely for individual users) and 'delete_team_access_token' (for removal). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with technical context.
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 in an OAuth flow context ('by exchanging an authorization code'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_access_token' or prerequisites. It offers some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.
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:

[![Qiita-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sunu-py-jp/Qiita-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sunu-py-jp/Qiita-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Qiita-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sunu-py-jp/Qiita-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sunu-py-jp/Qiita-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/sunu-py-jp/Qiita-MCP'

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