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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a new task' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. 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.

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 and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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

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

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after task creation, what the return value might be, or provide any behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('new task to OmniFocus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_project' or 'edit_item', which would require mentioning this is specifically for tasks rather than projects or editing existing items.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_project', 'edit_item', or 'batch_add_items'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any exclusions that would help an agent choose between these sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a project but doesn't explain what happens upon success (e.g., returns a project ID), error conditions, permissions needed, or side effects. 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.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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

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

For a mutation tool ('add') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return values, error handling, or system impacts, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add a new project') and target resource ('to OmniFocus'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'batch_add_items' that might also create items in OmniFocus, 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.

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 'add_project' over 'add_omnifocus_task' (for tasks vs. projects) or 'batch_add_items' (for bulk operations), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for project creation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a batch addition operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or returns any output. For a mutation 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Add multiple tasks or projects') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clarifying the batch nature and target system, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational transparency.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing, which is already covered by the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add multiple tasks or projects') and target ('to OmniFocus in a single operation'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from single-item tools like 'add_omnifocus_task' and 'add_project' by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings.

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

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

The description implies usage for adding multiple items at once, suggesting it's an alternative to single-item tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over siblings like 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'add_project', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving guidance incomplete.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Remove' which implies a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, confirmation prompts, or error handling for partial failures. For a batch deletion tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, 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.

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

Given the tool's complexity (batch destructive operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more completeness is needed to guide safe agent usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties (id, itemType, name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Remove multiple tasks or projects') and resource ('from OmniFocus') with the scope of 'in a single operation'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_item' by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_item' or other deletion methods. It mentions batch removal but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., efficiency for bulk cleanup) or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, usage context is implied at best.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Gets' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'current state' includes (tasks, projects, tags, etc.), the format of the output, whether this is a heavy operation, or any performance considerations. For a database dump 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose upfront. However, given the complexity of a database dump operation and the many sibling alternatives, this extreme conciseness comes at the cost of helpful context that would aid tool selection.

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

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

For a database dump tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 15 sibling retrieval tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is included in the dump, the output format, how this differs from more targeted retrieval tools, or any performance implications. 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.

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (hideCompleted and hideRecurringDuplicates). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('current state of your OmniFocus database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also retrieve task/project data (like get_flagged_tasks, get_inbox_tasks, etc.), 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.

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 15 sibling tools that retrieve various subsets of OmniFocus data, the agent receives no help in choosing between a full database dump and more targeted retrieval tools like get_flagged_tasks or filter_tasks.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic purpose. It doesn't mention that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'Edit'), what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided simultaneously (e.g., addTags vs replaceTags).

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, though it could benefit from additional context about usage and behavior.

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

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

For a complex mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for understanding, which lacks context about how the edit operation actually works in practice.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target ('a task or project in OmniFocus'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'remove_item' or 'add_omnifocus_task' beyond the basic edit vs add/remove distinction, missing opportunities to clarify scope boundaries.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing item ID), when to choose edit over remove+add, or how it differs from batch operations available in sibling tools like 'batch_add_items' or 'batch_remove_items'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if removal is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to dependent items, which is critical 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.

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 without any wasted words. 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.

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 such as the permanence of removal, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying removal targets tasks or projects, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a task or project from OmniFocus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'batch_remove_items' or 'edit_item', 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.

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 'batch_remove_items' for multiple items or 'edit_item' for modifications. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for removal, leaving usage unclear.

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