Freshservice MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions (e.g., create_ticket vs. update_ticket vs. delete_ticket). However, some potential overlap exists between list_tickets and search_tickets, and between get_ticket and get_ticket_conversations, which could cause minor confusion for agents about which to use in certain scenarios.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., create_ticket, list_agents, get_asset, update_problem, delete_change). All tools use snake_case with clear, predictable naming conventions, making them easily readable and systematic.
Tool Count2/5
With 53 tools, the count is excessively high for a single server, likely overwhelming for agents to navigate efficiently. While Freshservice is a comprehensive ITSM platform, this many tools suggests over-fragmentation of operations that could be consolidated or scoped more narrowly.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all key Freshservice domains (tickets, assets, changes, problems, solutions, agents, requesters, etc.). It includes all essential operations from listing and getting to creating, updating, and deleting, with no obvious gaps for core workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored.
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

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 details', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if agent_id is invalid), or response format. 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.
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 action ('Get details'). There's no wasted wording, but it could be slightly more structured by including key details. It earns a 4 for being concise, though it borders on under-specified.
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 retrieves agent details. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned), potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation with minimal structured data, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 'agent_id' documented as 'The agent ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.
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 'Get details of a specific agent' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'agent', but it's vague about what 'details' entails (e.g., fields like name, status, contact info) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'list_agents' (which likely returns multiple agents). It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'list_agents' to find agent IDs first or clarify that this is for retrieving a single agent by ID, unlike 'list_agents' for multiple agents. The description implies usage by specifying 'specific agent', but lacks explicit when/when-not 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. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. For a list tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information. 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 list tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'problem' entity represents in Freshservice, what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. The agent has minimal 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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 - the schema does some work but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'order_by' and 'order_type' parameters beyond their enum values.
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 'List Freshservice problems' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Freshservice problems'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'list_tickets' or 'list_changes' - all are list operations on different Freshservice entities. The purpose is clear but lacks 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. There's no mention of when to use list_problems versus get_problem (single vs multiple), versus list_tickets (different entity types), or any prerequisites. 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary 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 tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination parameters, doesn't describe the return format, and provides no context about how this differs from related tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the tool description provides no information about what 'page' and 'per_page' mean or how they affect the listing. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters essentially undocumented.
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 ('Freshservice departments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_department' (singular) or other list tools, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use list_departments versus get_department (singular), nor any context about pagination or filtering options that might be relevant compared to other list 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 the full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. 'List' suggests a read operation, but no details are given 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination, output format, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'page' and 'per_page' do, their typical values, or how pagination works in this context, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 ('Freshservice agent groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like list_agents or list_departments, which follow the same pattern, so it's not fully distinctive.
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 siblings like get_group (singular) and other list tools, the description doesn't specify that this is for paginated listing of all groups, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing articles but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's paginated (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not stated), what the output format is (no output schema), if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a list operation with parameters, 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant 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?
Given the complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination mechanics, output structure, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), with only 'folder_id' documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'folder_id' refers to, how 'page' and 'per_page' work together for pagination, or the meaning of the 'per_page' maximum. With 3 parameters and poor schema coverage, the description fails to compensate 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 ('List') and resource ('articles in a knowledge base folder'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_solution_article' (singular retrieval) and 'create_solution_article' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_solution_categories' or 'list_solution_folders' 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 a valid folder_id), compare to other list tools (e.g., 'list_solution_folders' for folders instead of articles), or specify use cases like browsing vs. searching. The description only states what it does, not when to choose 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral context, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'page' and 'per_page' do, their expected values, or how they affect the listing operation. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 ('knowledge base categories in Freshservice'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solution_category' (singular) or 'list_solution_folders', which would require 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. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_solution_categories' over 'get_solution_category' (for a single category) or 'list_solution_folders' (for folders within categories), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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 an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical 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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loaded with the essential action and resource, though it could benefit from additional context given 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?
Given the tool's mutation nature, 7 parameters with low schema coverage (14%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For an update tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (1 out of 7 parameters described), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'user_id', 'department_id', or 'asset_tag' mean, their formats, or relationships. The description fails to provide semantic context beyond what the sparse schema offers, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 Freshservice asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_asset' and 'delete_asset' by specifying it's for existing assets, though it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_change' or 'update_ticket' 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the asset display ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new assets), or how it differs from similar update tools for other resources like changes or tickets. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Update an existing Freshservice change request' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when partial parameters are provided. For a 12-parameter mutation tool, 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is minimal.
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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the numeric enums mean (priority 1-4, status 1-6, etc.), authentication requirements, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 8% (only change_id has a description), leaving 11 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any of the 12 parameters, their purposes, or how they affect the change request. This fails to compensate for the poor 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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Freshservice change request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like update_asset or update_ticket, which follow the same pattern for 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing change request), when not to use it, or how it differs from create_change or other update operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 provides minimal information. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, 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 at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While arguably too brief for a complex tool, every word serves a purpose and there's no 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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'problem' is in Freshservice context, what fields are updatable, what the operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 10% schema description coverage (only 'problem_id' has a description), the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what the 9 other parameters represent, their valid values beyond schema constraints, or how they affect the problem update. The description fails to compensate for the poor schema 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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_problem' by specifying it updates existing records rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or the scope of changes.
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 needing an existing problem ID), when to use update_problem versus create_problem, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter requirements 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an article but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core function 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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and output expectations, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only article_id has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'update an existing knowledge base article'. It doesn't explain what title, description, status, or tags represent, their formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low 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 ('update') and resource ('existing knowledge base article'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from creation operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_asset or update_ticket, which would require 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing article), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like create_solution_article or delete_solution_article, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, error handling, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is 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.
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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond the basic schema, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25%, with only 'ticket_id' and 'task_id' having descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or format of other parameters like 'status', 'due_date', or 'agent_id', leaving most parameters semantically unclear beyond their schema types.
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 the target ('a task on a Freshservice ticket'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_ticket_task' or 'delete_ticket_task'. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the task can be updated (e.g., title, status), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ticket_task' or 'get_ticket_task', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing ticket and task. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant behavioral 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 basic tool description 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 6 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, what fields are optional versus required beyond the schema, or what the tool returns. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'time_spent', 'note', 'billable', or 'executed_at' mean or their expected formats. This fails to compensate for the low 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 ('Update') and resource ('a time entry on a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_ticket' or 'update_ticket_task', which also update Freshservice 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing time entries), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_time_entry' or 'delete_time_entry'.
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 action. It doesn't mention whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a write 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.
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 constraints. The agent would need to guess about success responses, error formats, and operational limits.
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 no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (like HTML support in body or default private value), 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 ('Add a note') and target resource ('to a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling 'reply_to_ticket', which might also add notes/comments, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus 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 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 'reply_to_ticket' or 'update_ticket'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Create a new Freshservice asset' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what the return value might be, error conditions, or any system-specific behaviors. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('Freshservice asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_asset' or 'delete_asset' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_ticket'.
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., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from other asset-related tools like 'list_assets' or 'update_asset' in 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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 13 parameters, 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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and gets straight to the point 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 creation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'change request' is in the Freshservice context, what happens after creation, or provide any behavioral context. The agent would need to infer too much from the bare description and schema alone.
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 detailed parameter documentation including enum mappings for priority, status, change_type, risk, and impact. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not providing additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
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 ('Freshservice change request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool among siblings that include other create operations (like create_ticket, create_asset) by specifying it's for 'change requests' specifically.
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_ticket or create_problem. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide when this is the appropriate tool for the task at hand.
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 a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what happens on duplicate creation, or what the response looks like (especially important since there's no output schema). 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 that states exactly what the tool does 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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, how to handle errors, or how this differs from similar creation tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral 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 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, constraints, and required fields. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing 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 ('Create') and resource ('new Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ticket' or 'create_change' that also create Freshservice entities, missing the opportunity to specify this is specifically for problem management rather than tickets or changes.
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_ticket' or 'create_change' from the sibling list. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for problem creation versus other Freshservice entities.
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 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects 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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after creation (success response format, error conditions), permission requirements, or how this tool fits into broader workflows with sibling tools like get_solution_folder or update_solution_article. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs, but the overall context for using this tool remains under-specified.
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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate. However, it also doesn't provide any additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
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 ('knowledge base article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_solution_article' or 'delete_solution_article' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_ticket' or 'create_asset' 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a folder_id from get_solution_folder), when to choose this over update_solution_article for modifications, or how it relates to other knowledge base operations. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage 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. 'Create a new Freshservice ticket' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a creation 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 that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it immediately understandable 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 creation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, how to handle errors, or how this differs from similar creation tools. The combination of complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 14 parameters including constraints and relationships (like email/requester_id alternatives). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.
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 ('Create') and resource ('Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_change' or 'create_problem' beyond specifying it's for tickets, which keeps it from 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 'place_service_request' or 'reply_to_ticket'. With many sibling tools available (including other creation tools and ticket-related operations), the lack of contextual usage information is a significant gap.
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 behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether tasks are reversible, or any rate limits. 'Create' implies mutation but lacks details about the operation's impact.
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 straightforward creation 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.
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 explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of creating a task with 7 parameters in a ticket management system, more context about the operation's effects and requirements would be valuable.
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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
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 task') and target resource ('on a Freshservice ticket'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ticket' or 'create_time_entry', which also create related entities in the same system.
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 ticket), when to choose this over other task-related tools like 'update_ticket_task', or how it differs from similar creation tools like 'create_ticket' or 'create_time_entry'.
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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is destructive (implied but not explicit), irreversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for safe agent 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 parameter 'display_id' documented as 'The asset display ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensation.
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 resource ('a Freshservice asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_asset' or 'update_asset' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_ticket').
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 asset ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_assets' for finding IDs, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related records, or what happens upon success/failure. 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and gets straight to the point.
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 'delete' entails (permanent removal? archiving?), what the response looks like, error conditions, or security implications. Given the complexity of a delete operation in a service management context, more contextual information 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'change_id' parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate. This meets the baseline expectation 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 ('Delete') and resource ('Freshservice change request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_asset, delete_problem, etc.), which would require specifying it's specifically for change requests 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. With siblings like 'delete_ticket' and 'delete_problem' available, there's no indication that this is specifically for change requests rather than other entity types, nor any prerequisites or conditions for when deletion is appropriate versus other operations like 'update_change'.
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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation prompts, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 waste, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 the tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility), error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe agent operation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'article_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, source, or constraints for the ID), 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.
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 resource ('knowledge base article'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_solution_article' or 'update_solution_article' by the verb, but doesn't explicitly mention the 'solution' context in the description, though the tool name includes it.
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 the article ID), exclusions, or compare with related tools like 'delete_ticket' or 'delete_problem' in the sibling list, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion 'moves to trash', which adds useful context beyond a simple 'delete' verb. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response behavior. For a destructive operation with no annotations, 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 action ('Delete a Freshservice ticket') and adds clarifying detail ('moves to trash') concisely. Every word earns its place, making it 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 complexity of a destructive operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like permissions, reversibility, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., trash management). The 'moves to trash' note is helpful but insufficient for safe 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 the parameter 'ticket_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 ('Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket' or 'update_ticket' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_asset'), though the resource specificity helps.
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., ticket existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete tickets in certain states), or comparisons to other tools like 'update_ticket' for soft deletion. 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting ticket status), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured 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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('ticket_id' and 'task_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these IDs are needed for deletion. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without requiring compensation from 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 resource ('a task from a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_ticket' or 'delete_time_entry' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_asset' or 'delete_change' in terms of domain context, which keeps it from 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ticket and task), when-not scenarios (e.g., irreversible deletion), or direct alternatives like 'update_ticket_task' for modifying instead of deleting. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
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 destructive action ('Delete'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, confirmation prompts, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., irreversible deletion, auth needs), usage guidelines, and any mention of return values or errors. Given the complexity of a delete operation, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for 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 ('ticket_id' and 'entry_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between ticket and entry IDs or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 resource ('a time entry from a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_ticket' or 'delete_ticket_task' beyond specifying 'time entry,' which is somewhat implied by the tool name itself.
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 prerequisites like needing an existing time entry, or contrast with tools like 'update_time_entry' or 'list_time_entries.' The description only restates the basic function without contextual usage advice.
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 'gets details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 for a simple tool, 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. It doesn't explain what details are returned, error conditions, or how it differs from other tools in context. For a retrieval tool in a system with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct 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 the schema fully documents the 'display_id' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain what an 'asset' is or how 'display_id' relates to it. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 ('asset'), specifying it retrieves details for a specific asset. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assets' by focusing on a single asset, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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_assets' or other 'get_' tools. The description implies usage for a specific asset but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers.
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 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what details are included in the response. This is inadequate 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it highly efficient.
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 doesn't explain what details are returned, error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool in a service management context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 'change_id' documented as 'The change ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific change request', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_changes' or 'update_change', though the specificity of 'specific change request' implies retrieval of a single item by ID.
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_changes' for multiple changes or 'update_change' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a change ID from prior 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential error cases, or how this differs from similar tools. Given the context of sibling tools and lack of structured data, more completeness 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'requester_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific requester'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_requesters' or 'get_agent', 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_requesters' or other 'get_' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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 behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the return format, or potential errors. For a read operation with one parameter, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially since siblings include similar 'get_' tools with varying outputs.
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 (item_id is fully documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what an 'item_id' represents, how to obtain it, or provide examples. It relies entirely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific service catalog item', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'list_service_catalog_items' (which presumably lists multiple items), though the distinction is implied by 'specific' vs 'list' naming.
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 'specific' implies it's for retrieving a single known item, there's no explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the item_id) or comparison to 'list_service_catalog_items' for browsing. The description assumes context but doesn't state 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' an article, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens if the article_id is invalid, or the format of the returned content. 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full content' includes, the response format, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much 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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'article_id'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what an article_id is or where to find it), resulting in the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge base article with full content'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_solution_articles' by specifying retrieval of a single article with full content, but could be more explicit about the 'full content' aspect versus other get 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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_solution_article' versus 'list_solution_articles' or other get_* tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an article_id from a list operation.
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 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context like permissions or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse 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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail in the response, potential errors, or authentication needs. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 'category_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The category ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or valid ranges. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but relies on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a knowledge base category', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_solution_categories' (which likely lists multiple) by focusing on retrieving details for a single category. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_solution_folder' or 'get_solution_article', leaving some ambiguity about 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a category ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_solution_categories' for browsing or 'get_solution_folder' for folder details. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, content, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a knowledge base.
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's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with zero wasted 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., folder name, description, articles), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. Given the context of knowledge base management, more behavioral or output 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'folder_id' clearly documented as 'The folder ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. 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 action ('Get details') and resource ('knowledge base folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solution_category' or 'get_solution_article' that also retrieve knowledge base details, so it's not fully specific.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a folder ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_solution_folders' for browsing or 'get_solution_article' for content retrieval.
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 behavioral details. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it returns all agents or has limitations, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this is insufficient 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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource, 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 list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address pagination behavior, filtering logic, response format, or typical usage patterns. While concise, it leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective 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 50% (only email and active have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain pagination behavior, default values, or how filters combine. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Freshservice agents') with clarifying context ('support staff'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_agent' (singular retrieval) or other list tools, but the resource specificity is adequate 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' (for single agent retrieval) or other list_* tools for different resources. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'List' implies a read operation, but there's no disclosure of pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes an 'asset' versus 'configuration item'. The description states what it does but not how it behaves beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology. Every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, what fields assets contain, how configuration items relate to assets, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively beyond basic 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (page and per_page with maximum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain default values, pagination strategy, or relationship between assets and configuration items. 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Freshservice assets/configuration items', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_asset' (singular) or 'search_tickets', but the plural 'list' implies a collection operation. The purpose is specific enough 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_asset' (singular retrieval), 'search_tickets' (filtered search), and 'list_tickets' (similar list operation for tickets), there's no indication of when this asset listing is appropriate versus other listing or retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns 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 for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the output format looks like. 'List' suggests a read operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.
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 the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering options, pagination behavior, ordering capabilities, or what information is returned. The agent would need to infer much from parameter names and enums alone.
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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name. The enums for 'filter', 'order_by', and 'order_type' provide some structure, but the description doesn't explain what these filters mean or how they affect results. This meets the baseline for moderate 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 ('Freshservice change requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change' (which presumably retrieves a single change) or 'list_problems' (which lists a different resource type), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_changes' versus 'get_change' (for single changes) or 'list_tickets' (for different resource types), nor any 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a list operation but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'requester' in Freshservice context. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides inadequate behavioral context 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 extremely concise - a single phrase that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information (list requesters) and uses a clarifying parenthetical effectively. 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 list tool with pagination parameters (page, per_page) and filtering capability (email), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the paginated nature of results, filtering options, response format, or how requesters are defined in Freshservice. The description leaves critical operational context undocumented, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (1 of 3 parameters has a description), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. The description implies filtering capability ('requesters') but doesn't connect to the 'email' filter parameter or explain pagination behavior. With low schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, this meets the baseline but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's minimally inferable.
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 ('Freshservice requesters') with a clarifying parenthetical ('end users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_requester' (singular) by indicating this returns multiple items. However, it doesn't specify scope or format details that would make it fully distinct.
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 when to choose 'list_requesters' over 'get_requester' (singular lookup), nor does it indicate any prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or relationship to other list tools like 'list_agents'. Usage context is entirely implied rather than explicitly stated.
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 the tool lists items but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 returns data. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structure of catalog items), how to handle pagination beyond the parameters, or any error conditions. For a list operation with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain default values, typical usage patterns, 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 action ('List') and resource ('items in the Freshservice service catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_catalog_item' (singular) or 'place_service_request', which might be relevant alternatives for related actions.
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 when to use 'list_service_catalog_items' instead of 'get_service_catalog_item' (for a single item) or 'place_service_request' (for requesting a catalog item), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
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 behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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, making it highly concise and well-structured 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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, and output format, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional assumptions.
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 33% (only category_id has a description), and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'category_id' refers to, how pagination works, or the meaning of 'per_page' maximum. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, but the baseline is 3 as it doesn't contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('folders in a knowledge base category'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solution_folder' (singular) or 'list_solution_categories', 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 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 a valid category_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_solution_folder' for single folders or 'list_solution_categories' for broader listing.
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 filters' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all tickets or a subset). The description is minimal and leaves critical operational details 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Freshservice tickets') and adds necessary qualification ('with optional filters'). Every word earns its place, 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, pagination strategy, or how filters interact. For a list operation with many siblings and rich filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.
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 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filters' generically but doesn't explain filter semantics, relationships between parameters (e.g., filter vs requester_id), or practical usage. It doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap (order_by and order_type lack schema descriptions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Freshservice tickets') with scope ('with optional filters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' (singular) and 'search_tickets' (search vs list), though the distinction from 'search_tickets' could be more explicit. 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 'search_tickets' or 'get_ticket'. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for optimal tool selection among 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all tasks' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the tasks are returned in. For a 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 that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point with 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 a tool that presumably returns a list of tasks. It doesn't explain what information tasks contain, how they're structured, or what the agent should expect from the response. For a tool with rich sibling context and no structured output documentation, the description should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'ticket_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional 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 ('List all tasks') and resource ('for a Freshservice ticket'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_ticket_task' (singular) or other list operations, which would require explicit differentiation 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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus 'get_ticket_task' (singular) or other task-related operations, nor any context about prerequisites or constraints for listing ticket tasks.
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 'List time entries' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination, sorting, filtering beyond ticket_id, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for 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 the complexity of a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual details.
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 'ticket_id' clearly documented as 'The ticket ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 ('List') and resource ('time entries') with the context 'for a Freshservice ticket', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' or 'list_tickets', which might also involve ticket-related data, so it misses full 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, such as other list tools (e.g., 'list_tickets') or related get tools (e.g., 'get_ticket'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Place'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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 that gets straight to the point 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'service request' entails, what the expected outcome is, or provide any behavioral context. Given the complexity of placing a service request, more guidance 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'item_id' relates to the service catalog. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place') and resource ('service request from the Freshservice catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_ticket' by specifying it's for service catalog requests, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ticket' or 'get_service_catalog_item'. The description implies it's for service catalog items but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual boundaries.
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 a 'reply' operation (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether replies are public/private, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects of this ticket-reply function.
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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (like explaining HTML support implications or email array formats), 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 verb ('Reply to') and resource ('a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'add_note_to_ticket' which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'add_note_to_ticket' or 'update_ticket.' There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 search/filter functionality but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., ticket objects, pagination), error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search 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 communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and gets straight to the point.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, what happens with empty results, or any performance characteristics. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full behavior of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema including examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, 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 verb ('search/filter') and resource ('Freshservice tickets') with the mechanism ('using a query string'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_tickets' or 'get_ticket', which might offer alternative ways to retrieve ticket information.
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_tickets' or 'get_ticket', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to fields not specified. 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 straightforward 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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the update does to unspecified fields, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 73% (8 of 11 parameters have descriptions), providing a solid baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the 27% gap (category, sub_category, tags lack schema descriptions) 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_ticket' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_ticket_task' beyond the resource name.
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 (like needing a ticket ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations like 'reply_to_ticket' or 'add_note_to_ticket' among the many 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or any confirmation steps. This is a significant gap 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately communicating the core functionality without any fluff 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (permanent removal? archiving?), what permissions are needed, what happens to related data, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is essential.
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 the single parameter 'problem_id' clearly documented as 'The problem ID to delete.' The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_asset, delete_change, delete_ticket, etc., which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing the problem ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose delete_problem over other deletion tools like delete_ticket or delete_change.
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 details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, error handling, or rate limits. 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.
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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned or address behavioral aspects like error cases. For a read operation with no annotations, more context would be helpful.
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 'department_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific department'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_agent', 'get_asset', or 'get_ticket' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from 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 'list_departments' available, there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving a single department by ID while 'list_departments' is for multiple departments. No prerequisites or exclusions 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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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.
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. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'details' are returned and any behavioral constraints to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'group_id'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation 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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific agent group'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'get_agent', 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 'list_groups' or 'get_agent'. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned. For a tool with no 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, 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 simple single-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (no output schema exists), nor does it cover error handling or authentication. For a read operation, this is passable but leaves the agent guessing about the response format.
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 'problem_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. 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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from list_problems by specifying retrieval of a single problem rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like get_ticket or get_change, which have similar patterns.
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 when to use get_problem versus list_problems, nor does it clarify prerequisites like needing a known problem ID. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter 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 states it 'gets all conversations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns paginated results, the format of conversations (e.g., structured vs. raw text), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a read operation 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all conversations for a ticket') and adds clarifying detail ('replies and notes') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the scope (conversations include replies and notes), but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error cases, which are important for a read operation without structured output documentation.
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 'ticket_id' documented as 'The ticket ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or constraints (e.g., must be an existing ticket). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 all conversations') and resource ('for a ticket'), specifying it includes replies and notes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket' (which likely returns ticket metadata) and 'reply_to_ticket' (which creates a reply), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_tickets' or 'search_tickets' which operate on multiple tickets.
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 a valid ticket ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating conversations), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_ticket' (for metadata) or 'reply_to_ticket' (for adding replies).
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 it 'gets details' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It implies a safe read operation but lacks explicit confirmation or additional 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 no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, making it adequate but incomplete for a tool with two required parameters.
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 ('ticket_id' and 'task_id'). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, 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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific task on a ticket'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' or 'list_ticket_tasks', which 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 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_ticket_tasks' for multiple tasks or 'get_ticket' for ticket-level details. The description lacks context for selection among 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Log time spent') which implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a time entry ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Log time spent on a Freshservice ticket'), making it easy to parse quickly. 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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for safe invocation. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this tool effectively 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples beyond 'time_spent' or constraints. 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.
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 ('Log time spent') and resource ('on a Freshservice ticket'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_note_to_ticket' or 'create_ticket_task' which involve different operations on tickets. It uses precise language that directly communicates the tool's function without 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_note_to_ticket' or 'update_time_entry', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing valid ticket and agent IDs. It lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves ticket details, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or response format. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding.
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 adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at return values or error conditions.
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 'ticket_id' documented as 'The ticket ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance but also doesn't detract from 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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tickets' by specifying retrieval of a single ticket rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'get_ticket_conversations' or 'get_ticket_task', which target related 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when details of a specific ticket are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tickets' for multiple tickets or 'get_ticket_conversations' for ticket conversations. It also lacks prerequisites or exclusions, such as requiring a valid ticket ID.
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:

[![freshservice-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tannertm0/freshservice-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tannertm0/freshservice-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![freshservice-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tannertm0/freshservice-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tannertm0/freshservice-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/tannertm0/freshservice-mcp'

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