Ludus FastMCP

by tjnull

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, causing significant ambiguity. For example, there are multiple tools for building ranges (build_range_from_description, build_range_from_prompt, build_range_from_scratch, build_range_from_skeleton, create_custom_range_from_scenario, generate_config_from_description, interactive_build_range) that are difficult to distinguish. Similarly, there are numerous tools for deleting ranges (delete_range, delete_range_by_user, delete_ranges_by_status, cleanup_old_ranges) and many batch operations that overlap with individual ones. The sheer number of tools exacerbates the confusion, making it hard for an agent to choose the right one.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mostly consistent snake_case pattern, which is good. However, there are inconsistencies in verb usage and structure: some tools use 'get_' prefix (get_range, get_range_config), others use 'list_' (list_ranges, list_templates), and some use action verbs without a clear pattern (deploy_range, deploy_scenario, smart_deploy). While not chaotic, the mix of conventions reduces predictability and readability across the toolset.
Tool Count1/5
With 157 tools, the count is extremely high and feels overwhelming for the domain of cyber range management. Many tools appear redundant or overly specialized, such as having separate tools for batch operations on VMs (batch_power_on_hosts, batch_power_off_hosts, batch_snapshot_hosts, etc.) alongside individual and bulk counterparts. This excessive number suggests poor scoping and will likely confuse agents, making it difficult to navigate the tool surface effectively.
Completeness5/5
The toolset is remarkably complete for the domain of Ludus cyber range management. It covers the full lifecycle: range creation (multiple methods), deployment, configuration, monitoring, maintenance (snapshots, power operations), user management, template management, role installation, security profiles (adversary/defender), and cleanup. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform comprehensive operations from setup to teardown with extensive customization and educational support.
Average 3.4/5 across 157 of 157 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it returns partial or full configuration, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'Returns: Scenario configuration' is vague and doesn't explain what that entails. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a brief purpose statement and parameter/return sections, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is clear with labeled sections, yet the content within each section lacks depth. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary details, making it more of a skeleton than a complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., configuration retrieval in a multi-tool environment), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists (which might detail the return structure), the description doesn't explain key aspects like tool differentiation, parameter usage, or behavioral expectations. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
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%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description lists parameters ('scenario_key: Scenario identifier', 'siem_type: SIEM type to include') but provides only basic labels without explaining what valid values are, how 'scenario_key' relates to other tools, or what 'SIEM type' options exist (e.g., beyond the default 'wazuh'). This adds minimal semantics beyond the bare schema, insufficient to compensate for the 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get scenario configuration' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_scenario_config'. While it indicates a retrieval action on scenario configuration, it lacks specificity about what 'scenario configuration' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_yaml', or 'get_current_range_config_for_download'. This minimal phrasing doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve configuration-related data (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_yaml'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The absence of any context or prerequisites leaves 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only' which provides some permission context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation or creates side effects, whether it's destructive, what the backup format is, whether it triggers asynchronous processing, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves most 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence 'Export range backup' is under-specified rather than wasteful. The parameter explanations are efficient, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative. Overall structure is good with minimal redundancy.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a backup export operation with potential complexity (VM images, configuration, admin requirements), the description should provide more context about what the operation entails, prerequisites, and implications.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantic context for all three parameters: what include_vms and include_config control, and that user_id is optional and admin-only. However, it doesn't explain the implications of these choices (e.g., what happens if include_vms=false, what 'configuration' encompasses, or why admin privileges are needed for user_id). The description compensates partially but not fully for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Export range backup' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While 'Export' is a verb and 'range backup' is a resource, it lacks specificity about what 'range backup' entails or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_range_config_to_yaml' or 'import_range_backup'. The description doesn't clarify if this exports a full system backup, configuration only, or something else beyond what the name implies.
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 'export_range_config_to_yaml' and 'import_range_backup', there's no indication of when this backup export is appropriate versus other export methods. The parameter descriptions mention 'admin only' for user_id, but this doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'configure' and 'create_issue' but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. The description lacks critical details needed for safe and effective tool invocation, making it insufficient for a mutation-heavy tool.
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 structured with a brief purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Jira integration result'), which slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it's well-organized and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, mutation actions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for safe use, such as authentication requirements, error scenarios, or output details. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description still lacks essential behavioral and parametric guidance for a tool with multiple actions and parameters.
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. It lists parameters with brief notes (e.g., 'Action to perform', 'Jira instance URL'), but these add minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names. For example, it doesn't explain the format of 'jira_url' or the meaning of 'admin only' for 'user_id'. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to adequately clarify parameter meanings and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Integrate with Jira for issue tracking,' which provides a general purpose but is vague about the specific actions. It lists multiple actions (configure, create_issue, update_issue, link_deployment) but doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from potential siblings, as no Jira-specific siblings are mentioned in the list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and 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 lists actions but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate when to choose this over other integration tools or how it fits into workflows, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., invalidates old credentials), what the rotation entails (e.g., generates new keys), potential side effects (e.g., downtime), rate limits, or error conditions. For a credential management tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured with a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, but the Args section could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, though the Returns section is vague ('Credential rotation result'). Overall, it's efficient but slightly under-specified in parts.
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 credential rotation (a mutation operation with security implications), no annotations, and an output schema that likely documents return values, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, side effects), parameter usage, and context like when to invoke it. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but other gaps make this insufficient for safe and effective tool 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal value. It states 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies that it's optional and admin-restricted, but doesn't explain the parameter's role (e.g., whether it rotates credentials for a specific user or defaults to the current range), format expectations, or implications of omitting it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Rotate credentials for the range', which provides a clear verb ('rotate') and resource ('credentials for the range'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_user_apikey' or other credential-related operations, nor does it specify what type of credentials are being rotated (e.g., API keys, passwords, tokens). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the credential 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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, implying administrative privileges are required. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if there are other credential management tools), what triggers credential rotation, or any prerequisites like range status. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, this falls short of clear usage guidelines.
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 'starts testing state' which implies a state change operation, but doesn't clarify what permissions are needed, whether this is reversible, what side effects occur, or what happens to the range during testing. The mention that user_id is 'admin only' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation 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 appropriately concise with three short sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter and return value sections. No wasted words, though the initial purpose statement could be more informative.
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 that presumably changes system state (starting testing), with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. While there's an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description doesn't explain what 'testing state' entails, what gets affected, or how this interacts with other range operations. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of behavioral context, this is incomplete.
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 provides a brief parameter explanation: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adds meaningful context about the parameter being optional and admin-restricted. However, it doesn't explain what happens when user_id is null vs provided, or how this affects the testing process.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start testing state for the range' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'start_testing'. It doesn't specify what 'testing state' means, what kind of testing, or what 'range' refers to in this context. While it mentions a verb ('Start') and resource ('testing state for the range'), it's too vague to be genuinely helpful.
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 a sibling tool called 'stop_testing' that appears related, but the description doesn't mention it or explain when to start vs stop testing. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative approaches 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three brief sections (purpose, args, returns). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.
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 (mutation tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for safe and 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantics: 'config' is a 'Range configuration object' and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This doesn't explain the structure of 'config', what properties it accepts, or examples of valid values, leaving significant gaps for a tool with nested objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Update range configuration' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'range configuration' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to range operations (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'clone_range', 'delete_range'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this update 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 mentions that 'force' rebuilds even if the template exists and 'user_id' is admin-only, which adds some context about permissions and idempotency. However, it doesn't describe what 'build' entails (e.g., whether it's a long-running process, if it modifies existing resources, or what happens on failure), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the initial sentence 'Build a template' is redundant and could be omitted without losing information, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 that there's an output schema (handling return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details for a mutation tool (e.g., side effects, error handling). It's sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'template_id' identifies the template to build, 'force' controls rebuild behavior, and 'user_id' specifies optional admin context. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., what a valid template_id looks like).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Build a template' which is a tautology that restates the tool name 'build_template'. It doesn't specify what 'build' means in this context (e.g., compiling, deploying, or creating a template instance) or what resource is being built. While it mentions 'template' as the resource, it lacks a specific verb that distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_template', 'apply_template', or 'build_range_from_template'.
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, when it's appropriate to use 'force', or how it differs from sibling tools like 'build_container_based_template' or 'build_range_from_template'. The only implied usage is from the parameter descriptions, but there's no explicit context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Export' implies a read operation that outputs data, it doesn't specify whether this is a long-running process, requires admin privileges beyond the user_id parameter, has rate limits, or affects system state. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id hints at permission requirements but doesn't fully describe access controls or behavioral traits.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose ('Export metrics data') and follows with organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential parameter documentation. However, the core purpose statement is overly brief and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. The parameter documentation is thorough, but the purpose and usage guidance are minimal. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should better explain the tool's role versus siblings and its behavioral characteristics to be fully adequate.
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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. The Args section explicitly documents all four parameters: format (with allowed values: json, csv, prometheus), start_time and end_time (ISO format), and user_id (admin only). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics and constraints for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export metrics data' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'export_metrics'. It specifies the resource ('metrics data') but lacks a specific verb or any distinguishing details about what kind of export this is (e.g., bulk download, real-time stream, report generation). Compared to sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'get_deployment_metrics', it doesn't clarify how this export differs from those retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_range_metrics' and 'get_deployment_metrics' that likely retrieve metrics in different contexts, there's no indication of whether this tool is for administrative bulk exports, historical analysis, or integration purposes. The Args/Returns section lists parameters but doesn't offer usage context 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 the full burden. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', hinting at permission requirements, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, data format of results, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the front-loaded purpose statement could be more specific to improve clarity without adding length.
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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description provides a basic purpose and some parameter hints. However, for a tool with potential security implications (admin-only access), it lacks details on permissions, result structure, and interaction with sibling tools, making it adequate but incomplete for safe and 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which gives some semantic meaning (optional, admin-restricted) but does not explain what 'range' refers to, the format of 'user_id', or any other context. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description compensates minimally, falling short of fully clarifying parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get vulnerability scan results for the range', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('vulnerability scan results'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'get_detection_summary', leaving the specific scope of 'vulnerability scan' somewhat vague without further context about what distinguishes it from other retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a note that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which offers some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'get_detection_summary' or other security-related tools). There is no guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, making it minimal but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'applied changes' which implies mutation/write operations, but doesn't specify what gets changed, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements beyond 'admin only', or any side effects. For a tool that applies changes with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value. However, the purpose statement itself could be more informative. The structure is good but content could be denser.
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 that applies optimization changes with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'optimization' entails, what resources are affected, what criteria drive optimization, or what the return format looks like. The context signals show minimal parameter documentation, and the description doesn't adequately fill these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding important permission context. However, it doesn't explain what 'range' means or what optimization criteria are used. With only 1 parameter partially documented, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Optimize resource allocation for the range' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but 'optimize' is vague and doesn't specify what resources or what optimization means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'optimize_template' or 'get_resource_quotas'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'optimize_template' or 'get_resource_quotas'. There's no context about what triggers optimization or what problems it solves. The guidance is insufficient for informed tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id, hinting at permission needs, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether scheduling is idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what 'Task scheduling result' entails, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a purpose statement and sections for Args and Returns, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated, and some sentences lack depth, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and parameter specifics, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a scheduling 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (tasks, schedule, user_id) and adds that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only),' but provides no details on task structure, cron format, or validation rules, failing to adequately explain semantics beyond basic names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Schedule recurring tasks for the range,' which clarifies the action (schedule) and target (range tasks). However, it lacks specificity about what 'tasks' entail or how they differ from other scheduling tools like 'schedule_maintenance_window' or 'schedule_snapshots,' making it vague in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'admin only' for user_id but does not clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other scheduling tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'admin only' for user_id (implying permission requirements), it doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects: whether operations are reversible, destructive implications of 'delete', rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what constitutes 'bulk operation results'. For a tool with potentially destructive operations and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Bulk operation results') and could be more specific. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though some parameter explanations could be more informative.
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 (4 parameters, potentially destructive operations, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description lacks critical context: permission requirements beyond 'admin only', destructive implications, error handling, and detailed parameter semantics. For a bulk operations tool with significant potential impact, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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. It provides basic semantic information for all 4 parameters: operation types, vm_names default behavior, parameters as operation-specific, and user_id as admin-only. However, it lacks crucial details: valid operation values beyond the examples, format for vm_names, structure of parameters object, or user_id format/requirements. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete schema 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 tool performs 'bulk operations on multiple VMs' and lists specific operations (power_on, power_off, snapshot, delete), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_power_off_hosts' or 'batch_snapshot_hosts', which appear to handle similar operations in a batch context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the batch_* sibling tools. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific rather than overall usage guidance. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'common container' means. The description lacks details about the tool's behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the content is overly sparse—the single sentence 'Get configuration for a common container' is under-specified, and the additional lines don't add meaningful detail. It's concise but borders on under-informative.
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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and a vague purpose, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's context and usage. It meets a bare minimum but lacks depth 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantics by naming 'container_name' and stating it's for a 'common container', but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid container name or provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient for full understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get configuration for a common container', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_common_container_configs' or 'get_range_config'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools that also retrieve configurations (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_config'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool.
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 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which is useful behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what 'cost estimation' includes, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the estimation returns, or any rate limits or constraints. The description provides minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.
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 appropriately concise with three brief sentences that cover purpose, parameters, and returns. It's front-loaded with the main purpose statement. While efficient, the structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is clear and well-organized for a short description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values in the description), but with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what 'cost estimation' means in this context. It mentions 'admin only' constraints but doesn't provide enough context about what resources are being estimated or how the estimation is calculated. For a cost estimation tool in a complex range management system, this is minimally adequate.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides permission context. However, it doesn't explain what 'the range' refers to or what other implicit parameters might be needed. With 0% schema coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides basic but incomplete parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get cost estimation for the range' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('cost estimation'), but it's vague about what 'the range' refers to and doesn't distinguish this tool from any siblings. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of cost estimation is being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance - it mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to ranges, there's no indication of when cost estimation is needed versus other range operations like get_range, get_range_metrics, or get_deployment_metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'range information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), what permissions are needed beyond 'admin only' for the parameter, rate limits, or what the return format entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear main sentence followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each part earns its place without unnecessary details. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.
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 an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage for inputs, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it lacks differentiation from alternatives, detailed behavioral context, and full parameter semantics. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by explaining that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies its optional nature and admin restriction. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by detailing what 'range information' includes or how the parameter affects the output. It adds some value but not enough to elevate the score significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get current user's range information' which clearly indicates it retrieves data about a user's range. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_range_by_user', 'get_range_config', or 'get_range_metrics' that might retrieve similar or overlapping information. 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 minimal guidance: it mentions the 'user_id' parameter is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which hints at usage for admins. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_by_user' or 'get_range_config', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is incomplete and lacks explicit alternatives.
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 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and mentions an 'admin only' restriction for the user_id parameter. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: what 'range configuration' actually contains, whether this returns current/live configuration or stored configuration, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear main statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The three-line structure (purpose, args, returns) is efficient. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more naturally rather than appearing as separate documentation blocks.
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 that an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation in the description), the main gap is behavioral context. For a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations, the description should explain more about what 'range configuration' encompasses, whether this is a read-only operation, and any access restrictions beyond the admin note. The description is minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.
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 minimal parameter information beyond the schema. It notes that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)' - the 'admin only' constraint is useful semantic context not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description doesn't fully explain what 'range configuration' means or how the user_id parameter affects the results. The baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters, but with 1 parameter that's only partially explained, 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get range configuration' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a specific resource (range configuration). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_range', 'get_range_by_user', or 'get_current_range_config_for_download' - all of which appear to retrieve range-related information. 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. With many similar 'get_range*' tools in the sibling list, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over other range retrieval tools. The admin-only note about user_id is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination, or what 'deployment logs' entail. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, though they could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but it's slightly fragmented.
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, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a logging 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing meaning beyond the schema's type/optionality. However, with 1 parameter, this is minimal compensation; the baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here it only partially addresses the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get deployment logs for the range' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment logs for the range'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template_logs' or 'range_access_logs'. The purpose is understandable but lacks 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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_template_logs' or 'range_access_logs'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.
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 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a real-time or historical query, any rate limits, what happens if user_id is omitted, or how the metrics are formatted/aggregated. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences that cover purpose, parameters, and returns. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. While efficient, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more naturally rather than as separate labeled sections, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description provides adequate basic context. However, for a metrics retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally explain more about the metrics scope (real-time vs historical, aggregation level) and any constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description remains somewhat minimal for a tool that presumably returns complex metrics data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some semantic context for the single parameter: it explains that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's technical definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this represents minimal added value. The description doesn't explain what 'admin only' means in practice or how the parameter affects the returned metrics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get comprehensive metrics for the range' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'comprehensive metrics' specifically entails compared to sibling tools like 'get_deployment_metrics' or 'export_metrics', lacking clear differentiation. The purpose is understandable but not specific enough to distinguish it from 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint rather than usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_deployment_metrics' or 'export_metrics'.
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 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't specify what permissions are needed for the tool itself. It doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, whether this is a read-only operation, or what happens when user_id is omitted. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining the parameter, and describing the return. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. While efficient, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated into natural language.
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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values) and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic operation and provides some parameter context, but for a tool that likely interacts with security infrastructure (SIEM), more behavioral context would be helpful - especially since no annotations exist to provide safety or permission information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides permission context not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate - it doesn't explain what format the user_id should be in, what 'admin only' means precisely, or how the tool behaves differently with versus without this parameter. The baseline would be lower without the permission hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get SIEM information for the range' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what specific SIEM information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling SIEM tools like 'get_siem_agents' or 'get_siem_alerts' that likely retrieve different aspects of SIEM data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, this doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and other SIEM-related tools like 'get_siem_agents' or 'get_siem_alerts'. There's no context about what situations call for this particular SIEM information 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when user_id is omitted, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear three-part structure: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value indication. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers could be more integrated. No wasted words, but could be slightly more polished.
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 optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, filtering behavior, and operational characteristics. The description meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('Optional user ID (admin only)'), explaining its optional nature and permission requirement. However, it doesn't specify format constraints, what 'admin only' means in practice, or how the parameter affects results. This provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'List available templates', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_range_templates' or 'list_range_skeletons', leaving ambiguity about what specific type of templates it lists. The purpose is understandable 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. With many sibling tools that list various resources (templates, ranges, skeletons, etc.), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint is in the parameter description ('admin only'), but this isn't integrated into the tool's overall usage guidelines.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'optimize[s] a template,' implying a mutation, but does not specify if changes are reversible, require specific permissions beyond 'admin only,' or affect performance metrics. The return is vaguely described as 'Optimization result,' lacking details on format or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section is overly vague ('Optimization result'), which slightly reduces efficiency as it could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what optimization involves, side effects) and relies on the output schema for return values. This is adequate but has clear gaps, especially in usage context and transparency.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters in an 'Args' section with brief explanations: 'template_id: Template ID to optimize' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only).' This adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the purpose of template_id and the admin restriction for user_id. However, it does not fully cover semantics like format constraints or examples, leaving some gaps given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'optimize[s] a template for better performance,' which provides a clear verb ('optimize') and resource ('template'). However, it lacks specificity on what 'optimize' entails (e.g., resource usage, speed, cost) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'optimize_resource_allocation' or 'validate_template,' making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter detail, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when optimization is needed, or what distinguishes it from other template-related tools like 'validate_template' or 'build_template.'
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 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on VM state, network changes), error handling, or rate limits. The phrase 'Power on result' is vague about output behavior.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. However, the 'Returns' line ('Power on result') is overly vague and could be more informative without adding length.
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, 0% schema coverage, and a potentially complex operation (powering on multiple VMs), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input validation, error conditions, output structure (despite having an output schema), and how it interacts with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but other gaps remain significant.
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. It adds that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing context on permissions and optionality, but does not explain what 'range' means, how VMs are identified, or the format/validation for user_id. One parameter is partially documented, but key semantics are missing.
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 ('Power on') and target ('all VMs in the range'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_power_on_hosts' or 'power_off_range', leaving some ambiguity about scope or granularity.
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 (e.g., 'batch_power_on_hosts' or 'power_off_range'), nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
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 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't describe what 'stop testing state' entails—whether it's reversible, what side effects occur, or how it interacts with other operations. The return value is mentioned but not explained, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with separate sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. However, the core purpose statement 'Stop testing state for the range' is somewhat vague and could be more precise. The sentences earn their place but could be more informative.
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 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (though not detailed in the description), the description provides basic parameter info and mentions a return value. However, for a tool that likely modifies system state (implied by 'stop'), the lack of annotations and minimal behavioral context makes it incomplete—more details on effects and usage are needed for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that documents the user_id parameter as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, with only one parameter and partial coverage, it provides basic but incomplete context—it doesn't explain what happens if user_id is omitted or the implications of the admin restriction. This meets the baseline for minimal viable documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Stop testing state for the range' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'testing state' means and how this differs from similar operations like 'abort_and_remove_range' or 'abort_range_deployment' among the many sibling tools. It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from 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?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'admin only' mentioned for the user_id parameter, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus other stopping/aborting tools in the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for invocation. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which adds some permission context, but doesn't describe what 'visualization data' entails (e.g., format, structure, whether it's static or dynamic), potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a data generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear main sentence followed by brief Arg/Return sections. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., merging the Arg note into the main description). Every sentence adds value, but the separation into bullet-like sections feels slightly fragmented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (generating visualization data), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and adds some parameter context, but lacks details on behavior, usage scenarios, and how it differs from siblings. With output schema handling returns, the description meets a baseline but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.
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 minimal parameter semantics: it notes that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides permission context not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, with only one parameter and the schema lacking descriptions, the description doesn't fully explain what 'range' means or how the visualization is generated. It partially compensates but leaves key aspects undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Generate visualization data for the range' which provides a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('visualization data for the range'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'the range' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential visualization-related siblings like 'get_network_topology' or 'export_metrics', which might provide similar data outputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_topology' or 'export_metrics' that might provide related data. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisite context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a 'List of SIEM agents,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. The 'admin only' note adds some context, but overall transparency is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.
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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter briefly, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks details on usage context or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for effective agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only),' which clarifies its optional nature and admin restriction. However, with 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, this partial info is better than nothing but doesn't fully cover 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 tool's purpose: 'Get SIEM agents for the range.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SIEM agents'), and indicates scope ('for the range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info', 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 minimal guidance: it mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only,' which hints at permission requirements. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_siem_info'), or prerequisites for invoking the tool effectively.
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 'Wazuh configuration and status', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.
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 (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling, making it only adequate for minimal 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing some context beyond the schema's type and default. However, with one parameter, it doesn't fully explain its purpose, format, or impact, leaving gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Get Wazuh SIEM information for the range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Wazuh SIEM information'), and scope ('for the range'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_alerts', 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at permissions, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_alerts', nor does it provide context on prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit guidance limits its helpfulness.
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 action ('Power off all VMs') but doesn't clarify critical aspects: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), if it requires specific permissions beyond the admin hint, what happens to running processes, or error handling. The mention of 'admin only' in Args adds some context, but overall, behavioral traits are inadequately covered 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but lacks effective structure. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the Args and Returns sections are redundant with the schema (which exists) and output schema (present). This adds unnecessary length without new value. A more front-loaded approach focusing on context would improve efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation affecting multiple VMs), lack of annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety implications, error conditions, or how 'range' is defined. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but overall, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantics: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only).' This clarifies optionality and a permission constraint, but doesn't explain what 'range' means or how it's determined. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps, warranting a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Power off all VMs in the range.' This is a specific verb ('Power off') and resource ('all VMs in the range'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_power_off_hosts' or 'power_on_range', 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 sibling tools like 'batch_power_off_hosts' (which might handle subsets) or 'power_on_range' (the opposite action), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is in the Args section about 'admin only,' but this isn't integrated into usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't describe what the audit actually does, whether it's read-only or modifies anything, what resources it examines, how long it takes, or what format the report takes. For a security audit 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter and return value sections. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the natural language description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should document the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a security audit tool with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description should provide more context about what the audit examines, its scope, and behavioral characteristics to be complete.
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. It only mentions that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which adds minimal context about permissions but doesn't explain what effect specifying a user_id has on the audit scope or results. The single parameter remains poorly documented.
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 ('Run') and resource ('security audit on the range'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'compliance_check' or 'get_vulnerability_scan', which might have overlapping security-related functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance - only mentioning that 'user_id' is 'admin only'. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compliance_check' or 'get_vulnerability_scan', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for running a security audit.
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 the action is 'Abort' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed (beyond hinting 'admin only' for user_id), side effects on the template or system, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool'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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns, making it efficient and easy to scan. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Abort result'), and the overall content could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without external knowledge.
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 0%, so the schema provides no param details. The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameters and notes 'admin only' for user_id, but does not explain what a template ID is, format expectations, or the effect of providing user_id. This partially compensates but leaves key details undocumented, aligning with the baseline for low 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 ('Abort') and target ('a template build'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'abort_and_remove_range' or 'abort_range_deployment', which might handle different resources or scopes, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other abort-related tools or general template management tools like 'delete_template'. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invocation, making usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) and mentions 'admin only' for user_id, hinting at permission needs. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites existing templates), error conditions, or response format beyond 'Template addition result', leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Optional' is stated in both the description and schema), but overall it's efficient and readable.
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 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings, making it incomplete for optimal 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Template name', 'Optional user ID (admin only)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify expected formats (e.g., URL validation, user ID syntax) or constraints, leaving room for improvement.
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 new template') and resource ('to the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_template' or 'build_template', which appear to serve similar template-related functions, 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 'create_custom_template' or 'build_template' from the sibling list. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't explicitly state when or why to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what 'applying' does to the VM (e.g., reboots, configuration overwrites), error handling, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned but not explained.
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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Returns' line is vague ('Template application result') and could be more informative without adding bulk.
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, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a mutation tool with admin constraints, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations: vm_name identifies the target, template_id specifies what to apply, and user_id is optional/admin-only. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but doesn't detail formats (e.g., template_id syntax) or constraints (e.g., VM state requirements).
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 ('Apply') and target ('a template to a VM'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_template' or 'build_template' by focusing on application rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what 'applying' entails (e.g., configuration changes, deployment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'deploy_range', 'apply_adversary_profile', and 'apply_defender_profile', there's no indication of how this differs or when it's appropriate. The only contextual hint is the 'admin only' note for user_id, but this doesn't address tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'power off' (destructive action) and 'admin only' restriction for user_id, but doesn't address important behaviors like: whether this is reversible, error handling for invalid VM names, concurrency limits, or what happens if some VMs fail while others succeed. The description provides basic safety context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal words. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Results for each VM') and could be more specific without adding much length.
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 batch operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, side effects, or important behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error or additional 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics: 'vm_names: List of VM names to power off' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. This covers the purpose of both parameters but lacks format details (e.g., VM name format, user ID format) and doesn't explain what happens with null user_id. The description compensates partially but not fully for the schema 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 action ('power off multiple VMs in parallel') and resource ('VMs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'batch_power_on_hosts' beyond the opposite action, nor does it mention how it differs from 'power_off_range' which appears to operate on ranges rather than individual VMs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but doesn't explain when to use this versus 'power_off_range' (for entire ranges) or 'batch_power_on_hosts' (for the opposite operation). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool clears all permissions, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are affected, or any side effects (e.g., impact on active users). The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context about authorization needs, but overall behavioral details are sparse 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Clear result'), which slightly reduces efficiency, but overall the structure is effective and front-loaded.
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 complexity (a mutation operation clearing permissions), the description is moderately complete. It has an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and sparse behavioral details, it lacks context on safety, reversibility, or error handling. The parameter documentation helps, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps for a destructive 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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's purpose and restriction. However, it doesn't elaborate on format (e.g., expected ID structure) or default behavior when null, leaving some gaps. With one parameter partially documented, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Clear all range access permissions.' This is a specific verb ('Clear') + resource ('range access permissions'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'revoke_range_access' or 'get_range_access', which reduces the score from a perfect 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revoke_range_access' (which might target specific permissions rather than clearing all). No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cloning but fails to explain critical details like whether this operation is destructive, requires admin rights, affects the original range, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns, making it efficient. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, and some sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., repeating 'clone').
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 complexity of cloning a range with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are crucial for a mutation tool like this.
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 0%, but the description adds some value by explaining parameters: 'target_user_id' as the destination user, 'include_snapshots' as a boolean for including snapshots, and 'user_id' as optional and admin-only. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving details like format or constraints unclear.
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 ('Clone') and resource ('current range to another user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'clone_range' (if duplicates exist), 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_range'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a range must be active or if the user has permissions, leaving usage 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 states the tool 'Check compliance' and mentions 'admin only' for user_id, implying it may require specific permissions, but does not detail authentication needs, rate limits, or what the check entails (e.g., scope, duration, or impact). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its behavioral traits.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured efficiently, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be more concise by integrating the parameter details into a single flowing sentence, but overall, it is clear and well-organized.
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 complexity (a compliance check tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the parameters and return value ('Compliance check results'), and the output schema likely covers return details, reducing the burden. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or process, making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'framework' is for 'Security framework to check against' with examples (nist, pci, iso27001), and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. However, with two parameters and low schema coverage, this only partially compensates, as it does not fully clarify the semantics or constraints of the parameters beyond basic hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check compliance against security framework.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('compliance'), and the title 'compliance_check' aligns with this. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which include various security and audit-related tools like 'security_audit' and 'get_vulnerability_scan', so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a prerequisite but does not clarify the context or exclusions. With numerous sibling tools like 'security_audit' and 'get_vulnerability_scan', there is no indication of when this specific compliance check is appropriate, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 creates a template, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions beyond 'admin only' hints, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.
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 complexity (5 parameters, write operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and mentions an output, but since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and deeper parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Name for the container template', 'Base OS'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details on format constraints (e.g., valid OS values, container configuration structure), leaving gaps in 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 action ('Create') and resource ('container-based template'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_container_based_template' or 'create_custom_template', which appear to serve similar purposes in the same domain.
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 'build_container_based_template' or 'create_custom_template' from the sibling list. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at a prerequisite, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to other 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a pipeline, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions (beyond 'admin only' for user_id), side effects, error handling, or what 'Pipeline creation result' entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Each sentence adds value, such as clarifying parameter roles. It avoids redundancy, though the 'admin only' note could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a deployment pipeline with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't detailed in the description), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information on behavioral aspects, detailed parameter usage, and how this tool fits among siblings, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some semantic context for parameters: it explains that 'stages' are 'List of pipeline stages with configurations' and 'triggers' are 'Optional trigger conditions (schedule, webhook, etc.)'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, this only partially compensates. Key details like the structure of stages or specific trigger types are not elaborated, leaving gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a deployment pipeline with multiple stages.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('deployment pipeline'), and adds useful detail about 'multiple stages.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'deploy_range' or 'deploy_scenario,' which might involve deployment processes but are not specifically for pipeline creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter detail, not usage context. With many sibling tools related to deployment and ranges, there is no indication of when this tool is appropriate, such as for setting up automated workflows versus one-time deployments.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a playbook and returns information, but lacks details on permissions (beyond 'admin only' for one parameter), side effects, error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about critical behaviors like mutation impact or authentication needs.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It avoids redundancy and uses clear, concise language. However, the parameter explanations are very brief, and the 'Returns' section could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.
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 complexity (6 parameters, creation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but without annotations, more guidance on mutations and permissions is warranted. It meets minimum viability with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Scenario identifier', 'Playbook title'), which adds meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide deeper semantics like format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters. With low schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score of 3, as it covers basics but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a scenario playbook for training.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('scenario playbook'), and the context ('for training') helps distinguish it from general creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter-level detail, not a usage guideline. There is no indication of prerequisites, when to choose this over similar tools, or any exclusions, leaving 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a template and returns a result, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' for user_id, error conditions (e.g., if template is in use), or rate limits. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a template') and uses a structured format (Args/Returns) for clarity. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('Deletion result') and could be more informative without sacrificing 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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't detailed here), the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual elements: safety warnings, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., template must not be deployed), and how it differs from sibling deletion tools. For a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'template_id' identifies what to delete, and 'user_id' is optional and admin-restricted. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure), dependencies between parameters, or what 'admin only' entails (e.g., specific roles). This provides some value but leaves gaps.
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 template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_range_by_user', which would require mentioning what makes template deletion distinct from range deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance—only mentioning that 'user_id' is 'admin only' for one parameter. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_range'), what prerequisites exist, or any constraints on template deletion (e.g., only if not in use). This leaves significant gaps in usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a timeline with progress tracking, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's real-time vs. cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then lists args and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter note into the main description, but overall it's efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool that likely involves sensitive admin operations, more context on permissions, data scope, or integration with siblings would improve completeness. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some parameter context: it notes user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this minimal addition doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but since there is 1 parameter with some description, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get deployment timeline with progress tracking.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment timeline'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_deployment_status' or 'get_deployment_metrics' by focusing on timeline and progress. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, resulting in a score of 2.
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 returns a 'Network diagnostics report', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it performs active tests, requires permissions, has side effects, or details the report format. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and impact.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by brief sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the structure with separate 'Args' and 'Returns' headings is slightly verbose for such a short description, but still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (diagnostic function), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavior, usage scenarios, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but more guidance is needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some meaning beyond the input schema: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing context on its optionality and access restrictions. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is minimal compensation. The baseline is 3 since the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool's single parameter is partially clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Diagnose network connectivity issues.' It specifies the verb ('diagnose') and resource ('network connectivity issues'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_network_connectivity' or 'health_check', which appear related, so it doesn't achieve full 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 minimal guidance: it notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', implying restricted usage, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_network_connectivity' or 'health_check'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it generates side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For an export 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose more seamlessly with the parameter details, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies optional vs. required parameters, defaults, and constraints like 'admin only' for user_id. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics for each parameter (e.g., valid scenario_key formats, what 'include_solutions' entails), so it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool's purpose: 'Export lab guide for training purposes.' It specifies the verb ('Export') and resource ('lab guide'), and the context ('for training purposes') provides useful differentiation from other export tools like 'export_metrics' or 'export_range_backup'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from potential sibling tools with similar export functions, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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. With many sibling tools available (like 'generate_range_documentation', 'get_scenario_yaml', or 'export_range_config_to_yaml'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'include_credentials' can include credentials in documentation, which hints at security implications, but doesn't disclose other critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions beyond admin for user_id, rate limits, or what happens if the range doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns' could be more specific. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter notes into the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool that generates documentation potentially with security implications, more guidance on usage and behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all four parameters: 'format' specifies documentation formats, 'include_network_diagram' and 'include_credentials' control content inclusion, and 'user_id' indicates it's optional and admin-only. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format specifics or credential handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Generate[s] comprehensive documentation for the range,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'export_lab_guide' or 'get_attack_path_documentation,' leaving ambiguity about what specific type of documentation this generates versus 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'export_lab_guide' and 'get_attack_path_documentation,' there's no indication of whether this is for general range documentation, specific scenarios, or other contexts. The mention that 'user_id' is 'admin only' is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'generates' documentation, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, requires admin permissions (hinted by 'admin only' for user_id), or has side effects like creating files. It lacks details on rate limits, output format, or error handling, making it insufficient for a mutation-like tool.
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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant since the schema covers this, but they enhance readability without excessive verbosity.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and doesn't explain the output beyond a high-level summary. The output schema should handle return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'scenario_key' defaults to the current deployment and 'user_id' is 'admin only', which clarifies usage beyond the schema. However, it doesn't define what a 'scenario_key' or 'user_id' entails (e.g., format, examples), leaving gaps. With 2 parameters and partial compensation, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate attack path documentation for a scenario.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('attack path documentation'), making it distinct from most siblings (e.g., 'generate_range_documentation' is similar but for ranges, not attack paths). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_lab_guide' or 'get_detection_summary', which could be related, so it's not a perfect 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions optional parameters with defaults but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_range_documentation' or 'export_lab_guide'. No context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an active scenario) or exclusions is given, leaving the agent with little 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 offers limited behavioral insight. It hints at admin-only access for user_id but doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the formatting as a docstring-like block is slightly verbose.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameter defaults and restrictions but lacks behavioral context like side effects or error cases. The output schema reduces need to describe returns, but overall coverage is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that deployment_id defaults to current and user_id is admin-only, which clarifies optionality and access control. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, leaving gaps for the two parameters.
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 ('metrics for a specific deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'export_metrics', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'admin only' for user_id but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_metrics' or 'export_metrics'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context is given.
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 the tool returns 'detailed deployment status' but doesn't disclose what that includes, whether it's real-time or cached, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the admin hint, or how it differs from 'quick_status'. For a status-checking 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with three sentences, but the structure is inefficient. The core purpose is clear upfront, but the Args/Returns sections are redundant with the schema/output_schema. The 'admin only' note should be integrated into the main description rather than buried in parameter documentation.
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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with some description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a deployment status tool in a complex environment with many sibling tools, it should better differentiate itself and explain what 'detailed information' entails compared to alternatives.
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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'user_id' is optional and 'admin only'. This clarifies permission requirements and optionality beyond what the schema shows (just type and default). However, it doesn't explain what happens when user_id is provided versus omitted, or format expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get current deployment status with detailed information' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'quick_status' (likely less detailed) and 'get_deployment_metrics' (likely different data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'monitor_deployment' or 'deployment_timeline'.
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 this detailed status is preferred over 'quick_status', nor does it reference other status-related tools like 'get_template_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. The only contextual hint is the admin-only note in the parameter section, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which adds some behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what 'detection summary' entails, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and structured: it starts with the core purpose, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It includes purpose and some parameter info, but lacks behavioral details and usage context. With the output schema handling returns, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.
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 minimal parameter semantics: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, with only one parameter and low schema coverage, this is a basic addition. It doesn't explain the format or implications of 'user_id' in detail, so it partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detection summary from SIEM' specifies the action (get) and resource (detection summary from SIEM). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info', which are related SIEM tools. The purpose is clear but lacks 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 minimal usage guidance: it notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a prerequisite, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info'. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent with little context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'Network topology data' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., format, structure, or visualization specifics). It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, with every sentence serving a purpose. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into the flow, slightly affecting readability.
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 potential complexity (network topology data), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It specifies the purpose and mentions an output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but not fully informative 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?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it notes 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides context beyond the schema's basic type and nullability. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this addition is modest. It doesn't fully explain the parameter's role or implications, so it meets the baseline for a tool with low parameter count but doesn't excel.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get network topology visualization data.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network topology visualization data'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'visualize_range' or 'diagnose_network_issues', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach 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 many sibling tools related to networks, ranges, and diagnostics, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only hint is in the parameter description ('admin only'), but this isn't integrated into 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if 'user_id' is omitted. The mention of 'admin only' hints at permissions, but lacks detail on error handling or response format, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant, as the output schema exists. Every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like permissions or error cases. Without annotations, it should provide more context for safe invocation, making it just sufficient but not comprehensive.
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 some meaning beyond the input schema: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional' and 'admin only', which clarifies usage constraints not evident from the schema alone. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it doesn't fully explain what 'user_id' represents or how it affects the output. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but the added value is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get range access configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('range access configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grant_range_access', 'clear_range_access', or 'range_access_logs', 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 minimal guidance: it notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_by_user' or 'range_access_logs'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, structure). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity, as it leaves key operational 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for args, returns, and an example. Each sentence earns its place, but the example is somewhat redundant as it restates the parameter usage without adding new insights, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 implied by sibling tools (e.g., range management operations) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed range information' includes, potential errors, or how it differs from other range-related tools. This leaves too many gaps for effective agent use in a rich 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'user_id' is the 'User ID whose range to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints or examples beyond the basic example, leaving some ambiguity. With 1 parameter, this is a minimal but acceptable baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific user's range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('range'), and scope ('by user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range' or 'get_range_config', which might retrieve range information differently, so it doesn't reach a perfect 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, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for a specific user's active range or any range associated with the user. With many sibling tools like 'get_range' and 'get_range_config', this lack of differentiation 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' SSH config, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'SSH config content' entails. The admin-only note for user_id adds some context about permissions, but overall behavioral traits are minimally described.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, documenting the parameter, and describing the return value. The structure is clear with labeled sections for Args and Returns, though the formatting could be more integrated rather than appearing as separate documentation blocks.
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 simple nature (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, or typical use cases to fully 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context about the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)' clarifies that this parameter is optional and restricted to admin users. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this additional semantic information compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't explain format or constraints beyond the admin restriction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get SSH config for the range' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on a specific resource (SSH config). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range_rdpconfigs' that likely retrieve other configuration types, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint rather than usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to similar 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what 'configuration' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence adds value. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' formatting could be more integrated into natural language, slightly affecting readability.
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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return format specifics, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide an AI agent, but it falls short.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some value by explaining 'template_id' as 'Range template ID' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', giving basic semantics. However, it doesn't clarify format, constraints, or examples for these parameters, which limits its helpfulness. Given the low schema coverage, this is a baseline score with partial 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific range template configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('range template configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template_status' or 'list_range_templates', which is why it doesn't 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?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which is helpful, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_template_status' or 'list_range_templates'. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'Recovery recommendations based on failure analysis', which hints at read-only behavior but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this tool performs analysis itself or retrieves pre-computed results, what data sources it uses, potential side effects (e.g., logging), or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second outlines parameters and returns. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and output schema, and the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose and usage).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (analysis of failed deployments), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a parameter note, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how recommendations are generated), usage guidelines, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but more guidance on when and how to use this tool would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it notes 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and access restriction. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's impact (e.g., whether it filters recommendations by user or changes output format) or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this partial compensation justifies a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get recovery recommendations for failed deployments.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('recovery recommendations'), and the context ('for failed deployments') helps distinguish it from general diagnostic tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_network_issues' or 'get_deployment_status', which might also provide failure-related insights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when deployments fail, but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., after a deployment failure is detected), or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of or in conjunction with tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'diagnose_network_issues'. The 'admin only' note for user_id is a parameter detail, not a usage guideline.
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 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'range' means. The return format is stated but without 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'range' term is vague and could be clarified.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description adds value by documenting parameters and return type. However, it lacks context on 'range', error cases, or behavioral traits, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters (user_id, severity, limit) with basic semantics like 'Optional user ID (admin only)' and severity enum values. However, it doesn't clarify 'range' or provide examples, leaving gaps.
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 'SIEM alerts', specifying it's for a 'range'. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_agents' that might exist in the same domain, though those aren't in the provided sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id but doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or compare it to other alert-related tools (none in 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 tool retrieves logs (implying a read operation) but lacks details on permissions beyond the admin note, potential rate limits, response format, pagination, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely accesses sensitive build data.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but more context on usage, permissions, and parameter details would improve completeness. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'template_id' as 'Template ID' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding basic meaning. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., UUID), sourcing, or the implications of omitting 'user_id', leaving gaps. The baseline is 3 due to some value added over the bare 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('template build logs'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_range_logs' or 'get_template_status' that might also retrieve logs or status information, 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 minimal usage guidance. It notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which is helpful, but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_logs' or 'get_template_status' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the status information takes. The admin-only note for user_id is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The three-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the natural language flow rather than appearing as documentation headers.
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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (one optional with admin restrictions), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic parameter documentation but lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, or how this tool differs from similar status-checking siblings.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters (template_id and user_id) and provides crucial context that user_id is 'admin only', which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain what a Template ID looks like, where to find it, or what specific admin permissions are required for user_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('template build status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'get_template_logs' that might also provide status-related information about templates or deployments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status', 'get_template_logs', and 'quick_status', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's status retrieval from others or when it's the appropriate choice.
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 this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'User information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get information about a specific user.'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. There's no wasted text, though the Returns section is vague ('User information') and could be more informative if not for the presence of an output schema.
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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral traits, which are important even for simple tools. With no annotations, it doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section that documents 'user_id: User ID to retrieve', adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage and only specifies type 'string'). However, it doesn't provide details on the format, constraints, or examples of valid user IDs. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this partial compensation results in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about a specific user.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'get_user_apikey', 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_users' (for listing all users) or 'get_user_apikey' (for retrieving API keys), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate. The only implied usage is retrieving a single user by ID.
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 API key information but doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if the key is masked or full, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., for invalid users). For a tool accessing sensitive credentials, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return note. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'API key'), but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving sensitive data), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details like security implications or usage context. With output schema reducing the need to explain returns, it's borderline viable but incomplete for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by noting 'user_id: User ID to get API key for', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric vs. string) or constraints. This meets the baseline for low schema coverage but doesn't fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get API key for a user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('API key for a user'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'rotate_credentials', which could involve similar user-related operations, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user existence or permissions), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_user' for general user info or 'rotate_credentials' for key management. Without such context, the agent lacks clear 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 'admin only' for the 'user_id' parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether the tool is destructive (e.g., overwrites configurations), authentication needs beyond credentials, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with multiple actions and parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' making it easy to scan. It uses bullet-like formatting efficiently. However, some sentences could be more front-loaded (e.g., the purpose is clear but not elaborated), and the 'Returns' section is vague ('Git sync result'), slightly reducing conciseness.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a multi-action 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Action to perform (configure, sync, status)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail parameter interactions, constraints, or examples (e.g., what 'bidirectional' sync entails), leaving gaps in understanding for the 6 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Sync range configurations with Git repository,' specifying the verb 'sync' and the resource 'range configurations.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Git integration, unlike other range management tools like 'update_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential Git-related siblings, though none are listed.
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 lacks context on prerequisites, such as when to choose 'configure' vs. 'sync' actions, or how it compares to other configuration tools like 'update_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml.' This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'grant' operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't describe what 'range' refers to, whether this requires admin permissions beyond the parameter note, what happens if access already exists, or any rate limits/constraints. The return value is mentioned but not explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The purpose statement is front-loaded. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into natural language, and some details in parameter explanations are terse but not wasteful.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context: what 'range' means in this system, permission semantics, admin requirements beyond the parameter note, and what the 'Grant result' output contains. The output schema existence reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for behavioral completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations: target_user_id (user to grant to), permissions (list with enum-like values), and user_id (optional, admin only). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain permission semantics (what 'admin' entails vs 'write'), format expectations for user IDs, or default behaviors when user_id is null. Baseline 3 reflects partial compensation 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 ('grant access') and resource ('range for another user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_range_access' or 'revoke_range_access', which would require mentioning it's specifically for granting (not clearing/revoking) access.
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 'clear_range_access' or 'revoke_range_access'. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific guidance rather than overall usage context. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are 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 runs health checks on 'all VMs in the range', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'health checks' entail (e.g., performance metrics, connectivity tests), whether it's resource-intensive, or if there are rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for 'user_id' adds some context about permissions, but overall, the behavioral traits are vague for a tool with potential operational impact.
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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's action, and the others clarify parameter and output semantics. There's no unnecessary verbiage, making it efficient to parse, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
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 complexity of health checks on VMs, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the scope ('all VMs in the range') and hints at permissions ('admin only'), but lacks details on what health checks include, potential side effects, or error handling. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more operational context to fully guide an agent, especially with no annotations to cover 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?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics. It notes that 'user_id' is 'Optional' and 'admin only', which provides context beyond the schema's basic type and default. However, with 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining what 'user_id' is used for (e.g., filtering results, audit logging) or how it interacts with the health check process. This meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete 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 tool's purpose: 'Run health checks on all VMs in the range.' This specifies the verb ('Run health checks') and resource ('all VMs in the range'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_status' or 'batch_get_vm_status' that might provide similar status information, 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'user_id' parameter is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quick_status' or 'batch_get_vm_status'. There's no explicit context for when this tool is preferred or what prerequisites might be needed beyond admin access.
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 action 'Import' but does not clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' hints, or any side effects like overwriting existing scenarios. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral detail 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow, and the Returns section is vague ('Import result with scenario information'), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks critical context. It does not address behavioral risks, usage scenarios, or detailed parameter guidance, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool in a complex environment.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameters and notes that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies its optionality and access restriction. However, it does not explain the format or expected content of scenario_url (e.g., URL structure, supported repositories), leaving key parameter details undocumented, resulting in a baseline score.
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 'Import' and the resource 'scenario from the community repository', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_range_backup' or 'clone_and_modify_scenario', which might involve similar import or cloning operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other import or scenario-related tools, or any exclusions, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'restore' which implies mutation/destructive action, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing ranges, requires specific permissions beyond 'admin only' for user_id, has side effects on running VMs, or involves rate limits. The description adds minimal context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema exists.
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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context for a potentially destructive tool. The output schema reduces burden, but critical mutation details and usage prerequisites are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 4 parameters (backup_file path, restore_vms for VM disks, restore_config for configuration, user_id with admin restriction). However, these are basic semantic labels without details on formats, constraints, or interactions (e.g., what happens if restore_vms=false). The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('import and restore') and identifies the resource ('range from backup'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_range_backup' by indicating the opposite direction of operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other import/restore tools like 'import_community_scenario' beyond the 'range' focus.
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 backup file from 'export_range_backup'), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The only implicit usage hint is the 'admin only' note for 'user_id', but this is parameter-specific rather than tool-level guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'interactively build[s] a range' and returns a 'suggested configuration and deployment plan', but lacks critical details: whether this actually deploys a range or just plans it, what permissions are needed (especially for the admin-only 'user_id'), if it's read-only or mutative, or any rate limits. For a tool with potential deployment implications and admin parameters, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. There's no wasted text. However, the formatting with bullet-like sections is slightly informal for MCP, and it could be more integrated into a single fluent paragraph, keeping it efficient but not perfectly polished.
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 (interactive range building with admin parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the interactive nature (e.g., whether it involves follow-up prompts or is a one-shot), the scope of 'range' (e.g., VMs, networks), or what the 'suggested configuration and deployment plan' entails. For a tool that could lead to resource deployment, more context on behavior and outcomes 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: 'prompt' is described as a 'Natural language description of desired range', and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only shows types). However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of the prompt (e.g., examples, length) or clarify what 'admin only' entails (e.g., error behavior if non-admin uses it). Given the coverage gap, this is a minimal but not fully compensatory effort.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Interactively build a range using natural language prompts.' It specifies the verb ('build') and resource ('range'), and the interactive/natural language aspect distinguishes it from many sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description' or 'build_range_from_scratch'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'build_range_from_prompt' sounds similar), so it's not a perfect 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. With many sibling tools for building ranges (e.g., 'build_range_from_description', 'build_range_from_prompt', 'build_range_from_scratch'), there's no indication of when this interactive method is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or when not to use it. The only implied context is the need for a natural language prompt, but that's inherent to the tool's function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all hosts in range' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering beyond the optional user_id, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'range' refers to in context. The mention of 'admin only' hints at permissions but is vague.
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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, args, and returns. It's front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence serves a clear function without waste. Minor improvement could be integrating the args/returns more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.
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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining the parameter. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed. However, for a tool in a complex server with many siblings, it lacks context on 'range' definition, permissions, or behavioral nuances, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies the parameter's optionality and admin restriction. However, it doesn't detail the 'range' context or other implicit parameters, leaving gaps. With 1 parameter partially documented, baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not fully.
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 ('hosts in range'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_ranges' or 'list_templates' by specifying 'hosts', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_vm_skeletons' or 'list_networks' that might overlap in 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 mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific and doesn't address broader usage contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_range' or 'list_all_ranges_detailed' that might list hosts indirectly.
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 (implying read-only) and mentions an admin-only parameter, but doesn't describe pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'range' means contextually. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter constraint into the main description rather than burying it in the Args section.
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 relative simplicity (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps about operational constraints and doesn't leverage the rich sibling context to guide 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 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter (user_id) with its optional nature and admin restriction. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter format, validation rules, or provide examples, keeping it at baseline adequacy.
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 ('networks'), specifying scope ('in a range'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'list_ranges' or 'list_hosts' by focusing on networks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential network-related siblings like 'get_network_topology' or 'diagnose_network_issues'.
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, constraints, or compare with other network-related tools in the sibling list. The only implicit context is the 'admin only' note for the user_id parameter, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists templates 'from the community', implying a read-only operation that fetches shared resources, but doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'community' entails. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context about permissions, but overall behavioral traits are under-specified 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 appropriately sized with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter and return info more seamlessly rather than as separate labeled sections, and some wording is slightly redundant (e.g., 'List' in both the purpose and returns).
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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return type. However, for a listing tool in a context with many siblings, it lacks details on filtering, pagination, or how it differs from other template-related tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects, but it only partially compensates.
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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and restriction. However, it doesn't explain the format of user_id or what happens when it's null versus provided, leaving some gaps. With one parameter partially documented, a baseline 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 ('available range templates from the community'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'get_range_template', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a permission requirement, but doesn't explain when this parameter should be used versus omitted. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, and there's no context about when this tool is preferred over similar listing tools in the sibling set.
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 'List all snapshots' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'range' refers to. The parameter note 'admin only' adds some context about authorization needs, but overall behavioral traits are minimally described.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the parameter, and indicating the return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is clear, though slightly informal compared to pure natural language.
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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with some description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations and operating in a complex environment with many sibling tools, it should provide more context about what 'snapshots' and 'range' mean in this system. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose and access restriction. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'range' means in relation to the parameter. With only one parameter, the description provides adequate semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all snapshots for the range' which provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('snapshots'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_remove_snapshots' or 'batch_rollback_snapshots'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this listing operation from other snapshot-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_ranges' or 'list_hosts' that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The only contextual hint is in the parameter description ('admin only'), but this isn't integrated into usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'periodic updates' and returns 'progress information', but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a blocking or non-blocking operation, if it requires admin permissions (implied by 'admin only' in args but not stated in description), error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a monitoring tool with potential long-running or privileged operations.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's concise with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are somewhat informal and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting readability.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing parameters and mentioning an output schema exists. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and operational context. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to explain the monitoring process and constraints.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional user ID (admin only)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints, valid ranges for numeric parameters, or interaction effects, leaving gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Monitor deployment progress with periodic updates.' It specifies the verb ('monitor') and resource ('deployment progress'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'deployment_timeline', which might offer similar monitoring functions, 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. It mentions 'periodic updates' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to deployment and monitoring, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool publishes a scenario, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions (admin vs. regular user), whether publishing is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the scenario already exists in the repository. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is helpful but insufficient for overall transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter explanations, and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool without annotations. Minor improvement could be integrating usage guidelines into the flow.
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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations/output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers all parameters and the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, idempotency, errors) and doesn't fully address the complexity of a community publishing operation. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more completeness is needed regarding side effects and constraints.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (e.g., 'Optional tags for categorization', 'Make scenario publicly accessible', 'Optional user ID (admin only)'). However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples (e.g., format of scenario_key, tag conventions). This partial compensation earns a baseline score.
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 ('Publish') and resource ('a scenario to the community repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario' by focusing on community sharing rather than local operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'import_community_scenario' (which might be the inverse operation).
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., scenario must exist locally), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'share_range_config' or 'import_community_scenario'. The only implied context is publishing to a community repository, but no explicit usage rules are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes a snapshot, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the removal is permanent, requires specific permissions beyond 'admin only', has side effects on the VM, or includes error handling. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action ('Remove a snapshot.'). The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns: Removal result' is vague. There is minimal waste, but the lack of detail in the return statement slightly reduces efficiency.
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 complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and the basic action but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, permissions) and relies on the output schema for return values, which is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (vm_name, snapshot_name, user_id) and adds semantic context: vm_name and snapshot_name are required, and user_id is optional and 'admin only'. However, it does not explain parameter formats (e.g., string constraints) or interactions, leaving gaps. With 0% coverage, this partial compensation results in a baseline 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 ('Remove') and resource ('a snapshot'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_remove_snapshots' or 'rollback_snapshot', which limits the score to 4 instead of 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 (e.g., 'batch_remove_snapshots' for multiple snapshots or 'rollback_snapshot' for reverting). It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter detail, not usage context. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated resources (e.g., ranges), or any side effects like data deletion. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief Arg and Return sections. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Returns' line is vague ('Removal result') and could be more informative if not for the output schema handling return values.
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 complexity (a destructive user removal), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameter but misses critical behavioral details. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.
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 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter ('user_id: User ID to remove'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of the user_id (e.g., numeric vs. string, where to find it), leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('a user from the Ludus system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_range_by_user' or 'revoke_range_access', which might involve user-related removal operations in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools involving user or range operations (e.g., 'add_user', 'delete_range_by_user', 'revoke_range_access'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions for user removal.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action is 'revoke' (implying a mutation), but lacks details on permissions required (e.g., admin rights), side effects (e.g., whether access is permanently removed), error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for 'user_id' hints at authorization needs but is insufficient for comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the 'Returns' section is vague ('Revoke result'), which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and sibling differentiation. The output schema may provide return value details, reducing the burden on the description, but critical gaps remain for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target_user_id' as 'User ID to revoke access from' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify parameter formats (e.g., UUIDs), interactions, or examples, leaving gaps in 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 ('revoke') and resource ('range access') with the target ('from a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_range_access' or 'grant_range_access', which limits the score to 4 instead of 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 like 'clear_range_access' or 'remove_user', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only implied usage is revoking access from a user, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Rollback') which implies a destructive/mutative operation, but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this requires admin privileges (beyond the optional user_id hint), if it's reversible, what happens to current VM state, expected downtime, or error conditions. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is helpful but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the Args explain parameters, and Returns indicates output. It could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter context into the main description, but there's minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but critical behavioral context is missing: permission requirements, side effects, and rollback implications. It covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when' sufficiently for safe 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming and briefly describing each parameter, including the optional 'admin only' note for user_id. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., VM naming conventions), constraints, or provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves important details uncovered.
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 ('Rollback') and resource ('to a snapshot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'batch_rollback_snapshots' by being singular, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other snapshot-related tools like 'remove_snapshot' or 'list_snapshots'.
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., whether the VM must be powered off), compare to batch operations, or specify scenarios where rollback is appropriate versus other recovery methods. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but does not cover other critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Maintenance window scheduling result' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to parse. It is relatively concise, with each parameter explanation being brief. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Maintenance window scheduling result'), and some sentences could be more informative without adding unnecessary length.
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 scheduling a maintenance window (likely a mutation with system-wide impact), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It misses critical context such as side effects, error conditions, return value details, and how it interacts with other range operations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Start time in ISO format'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints, formats for 'operations', or implications of 'notify_users', resulting in only partial compensation 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 ('Schedule a maintenance window') and the target ('for the range'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'schedule_range_tasks' or 'schedule_snapshots', which could involve similar scheduling concepts, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to scheduling and range management (e.g., 'schedule_range_tasks', 'schedule_snapshots'), there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool shares configuration and returns a share result with an access link, which implies a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether sharing is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description covers basic behavior but misses critical context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section listing parameters with brief semantics, and a 'Returns' section. There's no redundant information, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the parameter explanations, but overall it's efficient.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains all parameters and the return value, which helps compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. However, as a mutation tool with siblings like 'grant_range_access', it should provide more context on usage differences and behavioral details to be fully adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema. For example, it clarifies that 'target_user_ids' is a list of user IDs to share with and 'permissions' includes options like read, clone, modify. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., if permissions are case-sensitive) or dependencies between parameters, leaving gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Share range configuration with other users.' It specifies the verb ('share') and resource ('range configuration'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grant_range_access' or 'clear_range_access', which appear related to range access management.
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, such as whether a range must exist or be in a specific state, nor does it compare to siblings like 'grant_range_access' or 'clear_range_access'. The only implied usage is from the parameter 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which hints at admin requirements but isn't explicit about when to include it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what 'configure' entails, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Slack integration result' contains beyond the output schema.
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 appropriately sized and structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Each sentence adds value, though the 'Configure Slack notifications' line could be more specific. No wasted words, but the structure is functional rather than optimized for front-loading key 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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter info and mentions an output schema exists ('Returns: Slack integration result'). However, it lacks crucial context for a configuration tool: what 'configure' does, permission models, side effects, and how parameters interact across different actions.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Action to perform', 'Slack webhook URL'), adding basic semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, valid values for 'action' or 'events', or format requirements for 'webhook_url' and 'channel'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Configure Slack notifications' with a specific verb ('configure') and resource ('Slack notifications'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'webhook_integration' by specifying the platform (Slack), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notification tools if they exist.
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, dependencies, or when to choose this over other notification/integration tools like 'webhook_integration' or 'jira_integration' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id, hinting at permission requirements, but fails to address critical aspects like whether the snapshot is destructive, reversible, or impacts VM performance, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists, making it slightly less efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and deeper usage context, making it minimally viable but incomplete for safe 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional snapshot description'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints, examples, or interactions between parameters, resulting in adequate but incomplete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a snapshot') and resource ('of a host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_snapshot_hosts' or 'list_snapshots', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_snapshot_hosts' or 'schedule_snapshots'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or constraints, offering 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares templates and returns differences, but does not explain what 'differences' entail (e.g., structural changes, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the Args section could be more integrated into the flow. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters superficially, but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and deeper parameter explanations. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description does not fully compensate for other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by listing parameter names and noting 'Optional user ID (admin only)' for user_id, which clarifies its optionality and access restriction. However, it does not explain what template IDs are, their format, or how they should be obtained, leaving two required parameters poorly defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two templates and show differences.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('templates'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'validate_template' or 'get_template_dependencies', which might involve template analysis, so it misses full 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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., templates must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for single template validation), or explicit sibling tool comparisons. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a connectivity test but doesn't describe what the test entails, whether it's destructive, what permissions are needed beyond 'admin only', or how results are returned. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context about authorization needs, but overall behavioral traits are insufficiently covered for a mutation-like testing tool.
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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for the purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective, making it easy to understand the tool's function quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and parameter constraints. For a network testing tool with admin implications, more completeness 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'Source VM name' for source_vm) and don't clarify constraints like format or relationships between parameters (e.g., port is required for tcp/udp but not icmp). This provides basic but incomplete semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test network connectivity between VMs.' It specifies the verb ('Test'), resource ('network connectivity'), and scope ('between VMs'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_network_issues' or 'capture_network_traffic', 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. While it mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, this is a parameter detail rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'diagnose_network_issues'.
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 users and returns their information, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's paginated, if it requires authentication, what fields are included in the return, or any rate limits. For a read operation 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Returns: List of all users with their information') is somewhat redundant with the first. It's concise but not optimally structured, as the return statement could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with behavioral gaps (e.g., no mention of pagination or authentication), it doesn't provide complete context for safe and effective use. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to explain behavior.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given because the schema fully covers the parameters (none exist), and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all users in the Ludus system.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), and the system context ('Ludus system') provides useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'add_user', 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user' (for retrieving a specific user) or 'add_user' (for creating users), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool validates configuration and returns errors and warnings, which gives some insight into its read-only, non-destructive nature. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, validation criteria, or what happens on failure. For a validation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional lines for 'Args' and 'Returns' are structured but slightly redundant since the output schema exists. Overall, it's efficient with little waste, though it could be more concise by omitting the structured parts if they're covered elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (validation with one parameter and nested objects), the description provides a basic purpose and return indication. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description lacks sufficient detail on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it only minimally adequate.
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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'config' documented only as an object with additional properties. The description adds minimal semantics by stating 'Range configuration to validate', but this is vague and doesn't clarify the structure, format, or constraints of the configuration. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly understood.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate range configuration before deployment.' It specifies the verb ('validate'), resource ('range configuration'), and context ('before deployment'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_template' or 'compliance_check', which might also involve validation, so it doesn't reach 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('before deployment'), suggesting it should be used as a pre-deployment check. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_template' or 'compliance_check', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not fully articulated.
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 that 'user_id' is 'admin only,' which hints at permission requirements, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential side effects (e.g., impact on running VMs), rate limits, or error handling. The description is too vague for a configuration tool with potential system-wide effects.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It uses bullet-like formatting for clarity and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value, such as the parameter explanations, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 complexity of auto-scaling configuration, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and mentions a return value, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics (though an output schema exists, reducing the need for return value explanation). With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more guidance on system impact and prerequisites to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing all five parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Enable or disable auto-scaling' for 'enable'). It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only),' providing context not evident from the schema alone. However, 'scaling_policy' is only described as 'Scaling policy configuration,' which remains vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure auto-scaling for the range.' It specifies the verb ('configure') and resource ('auto-scaling for the range'), making the intent explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as no other auto-scaling tools are listed among siblings, but the purpose is still clear and 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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, when it should be applied (e.g., during deployment or maintenance), or any exclusions. Without such information, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in parallel' (a performance trait) and 'admin only' for user_id (an authorization need), which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, error handling, whether it's read-only or mutating, or what 'status' entails (e.g., uptime, health, deployment state). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('Status for each VM') and could be more specific without adding bulk.
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 (batch operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of status data), error cases, performance implications of 'in parallel', and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive 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?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('vm_names', 'user_id') with brief notes, adding meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'vm_names' is a list and 'user_id' is optional/admin-only. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., VM name conventions), constraints, or examples, only partially compensating 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 tool's purpose: 'Get status of multiple VMs in parallel.' It specifies the verb ('Get status'), resource ('multiple VMs'), and key operational detail ('in parallel'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_status' or 'get_deployment_status' that might also retrieve status information, 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'in parallel' and the optional 'user_id' parameter note ('admin only'), suggesting this tool is for batch operations with potential admin restrictions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'quick_status' or other status-checking siblings, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin hint.
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 provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions parallel execution and admin-only restriction for user_id, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'Results for each VM' contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Example). The description is front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be more concise. Overall efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial behavioral details (permissions, side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain the return format beyond 'Results for each VM'. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents both parameters in the Args section, explaining vm_names as 'List of VM names to power on' and user_id as 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though format details remain unspecified.
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 ('Power on') and resource ('multiple VMs'), specifying parallel execution. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'batch_power_off_hosts' by stating the opposite action, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for powering on multiple VMs in parallel, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. single-VM tools or other batch operations. The 'admin only' note for user_id provides some context but not comprehensive guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes snapshots (implying a destructive operation) and processes in parallel, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether removal is reversible, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' hint, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context, but overall disclosure is insufficient for a destructive batch operation.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Results for each VM') and could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.
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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a destructive batch tool, it lacks crucial context like error behavior, idempotency, side effects, or output format details. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which isn't fully met.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: vm_names ('List of VM names'), snapshot_name ('Name of snapshot to remove'), and user_id ('Optional user ID (admin only)'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., VM name patterns) or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove snapshots') and target ('from multiple VMs in parallel'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_snapshot' (singular) by emphasizing batch/parallel processing, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_snapshot' or 'batch_rollback_snapshots'. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific and doesn't constitute overall usage guidance. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', it doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (likely not, as it captures traffic), what permissions are needed beyond admin status, whether it affects VM performance, what happens if capture fails, or any rate limits. For a tool with potential performance impact and admin requirements, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses only essential sentences. The opening statement is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Args section could be more concise by integrating some details into the schema descriptions, and the Returns statement is somewhat vague ('Traffic capture result with download link').
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 complexity (network capture tool with admin requirements), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, performance impact, error handling). The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return values, but more operational guidance would help.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'vm_name' is required, 'interface' defaults to 'eth0', 'duration' is in seconds, 'filter' is an optional BPF expression, and 'user_id' is admin-only. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on BPF filter syntax or interface options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool captures network traffic on a VM, specifying the verb 'capture' and resource 'network traffic on a VM'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'diagnose_network_issues' or 'test_network_connectivity' by focusing on active traffic capture rather than diagnostics or connectivity testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over other network-related 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. With many sibling tools like 'diagnose_network_issues', 'get_network_topology', and 'test_network_connectivity', there's no indication of when network traffic capture is appropriate versus other network operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implying a write operation but does not cover permissions (e.g., 'admin only' is noted for user_id but not overall), side effects, error handling, or rate limits. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-point list for parameters and returns, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the 'Returns' section is redundant given the output schema.
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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but overall completeness is moderate with notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies optional vs. required parameters and notes admin restrictions for user_id, compensating well for the schema's lack of 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 ('create') and resource ('custom template from scratch'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_os_template' or 'create_container_template', which likely have overlapping or related functionality, 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 template-creation siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('Ansible inventory in INI format'), which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter note into the main description, but overall it's efficient.
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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the INI format), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'user_id' is optional and 'admin only', which clarifies access control beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it could specify what happens if user_id is omitted (e.g., defaults to current user or all users).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Ansible inventory for the range.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Ansible inventory for the range'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range_sshconfig', which also retrieve range-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. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint, not usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what scenarios it's designed for compared to other 'get_range_*' 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which is useful context about authorization requirements. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the RDP config content is in, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, describing the parameter, and specifying the return format. It's well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter constraint more naturally rather than as a parenthetical.
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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond the high-level 'Dictionary of VM names to RDP config content'. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter documentation, the description provides minimal context about the tool's behavior, permissions, or error handling. It's adequate but leaves clear gaps for a tool that retrieves configuration data.
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 description adds meaningful context about the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. This clarifies that the parameter is optional (matching the schema's default: null) and specifies an authorization requirement not evident from the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the single parameter, though it doesn't explain what happens when user_id is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get RDP configuration files for the range.' It specifies the resource (RDP configuration files) and the scope (for the range). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range_sshconfig' that also retrieve configuration data, 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. With many sibling tools that retrieve configuration data (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_range_sshconfig'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's appropriate. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned information. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool that likely involves sensitive data access.
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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the content is somewhat sparse, which limits its helpfulness but doesn't detract from its structural efficiency.
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 resource management and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resource quotas and usage information' entails, such as data format, scope, or potential limitations. For a tool that could involve detailed metrics, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full 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 0%, but the description adds some semantics by explaining that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only).' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and constraints. However, with only one parameter and no additional details like format or examples, it partially compensates but doesn't fully address 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 tool's purpose with 'Get resource quotas and current usage,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'get_deployment_metrics' that might also provide usage data, though the focus on 'quotas' is somewhat distinctive.
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 by mentioning 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, suggesting a context where administrative privileges are required. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_metrics' or 'list_users,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin note.
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 'Get[s] scenario configuration as YAML' and mentions returns, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, 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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for the main purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate yet could be more informative for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('scenario_key', 'siem_type') and a 'Returns' section, adding some meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details on parameter semantics. The description compensates slightly by naming parameters and indicating a default for 'siem_type', but it lacks explanations of what these parameters represent or their expected formats, leaving room for improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get scenario configuration as YAML.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('scenario configuration'), and format ('YAML'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scenario_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml', which may have overlapping functionality.
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_scenario_config' and 'export_range_config_to_yaml', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context, prerequisites, or use cases. The absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed information and lists output keys, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently explains the return value and provides a clear example. While slightly verbose in listing output keys, each sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and output structure well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and usage guidelines. For a read operation in a complex sibling environment, more guidance would improve completeness.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by detailing the return structure (adversary_profiles, defender_profiles, siem_types, use_cases), which adds value beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of an output 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 tool's purpose: 'List all available adversary and defender profiles with descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('adversary and defender profiles'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_adversary_profile' or 'apply_defender_profile' by indicating it's for listing rather than applying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_ranges' or 'list_templates', 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, context (e.g., before applying profiles), or compare it to other list tools in the sibling set. The example shows basic usage but lacks contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer 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 but lacks behavioral details. It mentions the return type ('Dictionary of common container configurations') but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or involves side effects. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. However, the second sentence about returns is somewhat redundant given the presence of an output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, which are gaps despite the structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have noted the lack of inputs more explicitly. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
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 'common container base images', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_common_container_configs' or 'get_container_config', which appear to serve similar purposes, 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 'get_common_container_configs' or 'get_container_config'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'Formatted status string' and that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which adds some context about output format and permissions. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter semantics, and output format. However, for a status-checking tool in a complex deployment environment with many siblings, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus alternatives and could provide more behavioral context (e.g., is it cached, real-time?).
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the single parameter by stating 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', explaining it's optional and has admin restrictions. However, it doesn't specify the format of the user_id (e.g., string pattern) or what happens if omitted. With one parameter and partial semantic clarification, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete 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 tool's purpose: 'Get one-line deployment status with emoji indicators.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status') with a specific output format ('one-line with emoji indicators'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment', which likely provide more detailed status 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'user_id' parameter is 'admin only', which hints at a permission requirement, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', hinting at permission requirements, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Snapshot scheduling result' entails. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is front-loaded and efficient, with each sentence adding value. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Snapshot scheduling result'), which slightly reduces conciseness by not being fully informative.
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 complexity (scheduling snapshots with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that likely details the return value, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema may mitigate the need to explain return values, but overall, it falls short of being fully comprehensive for a mutation tool.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: 'vm_names' as a list of VMs, 'schedule' as a cron expression, 'retention_count' as the number to retain, and 'user_id' as optional and admin-only. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on cron format or retention behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Schedule automatic snapshots for VMs.' It specifies the verb ('schedule') and resource ('snapshots for VMs'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'snapshot_host' or 'batch_snapshot_hosts', which appear to handle snapshot operations differently, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as VM availability or permissions, and does not mention sibling tools like 'snapshot_host' or 'batch_snapshot_hosts' for comparison. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'create, update, delete' but fails to detail permissions (e.g., admin requirements beyond user_id note), side effects (e.g., data persistence), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-heavy tool.
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 well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the core purpose more prominently, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation actions) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and returns but misses behavioral details like authentication needs or error cases. The presence of an output schema helps, but more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It adds substantial value by explaining each parameter's purpose and usage context (e.g., 'webhook_url (for create/update)', 'user_id (admin only)'), clarifying semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., URL validation, event types) or constraints, preventing a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Manage webhook integrations' with specific actions (create, update, delete, list, test), making the verb+resource explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools (none appear to be webhook-related), so it misses the highest score for 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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lists actions and parameters but offers no context about appropriate scenarios or comparisons with other tools, resulting in 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list of dependencies but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the dependencies are returned in. The mention that user_id is 'admin only' is helpful but minimal given the lack of annotations.
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 well-structured and concise: a brief purpose statement followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with headings makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this might be sufficient, but it could benefit from more operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: template_id is required and identifies the template, and user_id is optional with an 'admin only' constraint. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the format or validation rules for these IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get template dependencies' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('template dependencies'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on ranges, scenarios, or other resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get_*' tools like 'get_template_status' or 'get_template_logs'.
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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_template_status' or 'list_templates'. The only implicit guidance is that it requires a template_id, but no explicit usage scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool as a list operation with detailed output, which implies it's read-only and non-destructive. However, it lacks details on potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The example output adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes an extensive example that may be verbose. The first two sentences clearly state the purpose, but the 'Returns:' section and example add redundancy by detailing output structure without an output schema. While helpful, the example could be trimmed to improve front-loading of 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 complexity (listing all ranges with details), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output structure via the example, but lacks information on behavioral aspects like performance, limitations, or error cases. The example compensates somewhat, but gaps remain for a tool in a rich sibling environment.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no required inputs through the example usage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's indication of a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all ranges with detailed information including identification.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('ranges'), and scope ('all' with 'detailed information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_ranges' or 'get_range', which might offer different levels of detail or filtering options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'making it easy to identify which range belongs to which user or purpose,' which implies a use case for identification, but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_ranges' or 'get_range_by_user'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the log entries have, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides clear parameter explanations in a formatted Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which covers return values) and only 2 parameters with good semantic explanation in the description, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, for a tool that likely involves sensitive access logs and admin permissions, more context about security implications, data formats, or usage constraints would be beneficial. The description meets minimum requirements but could be more complete.
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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond what the schema provides. For 'user_id', it specifies 'Optional user ID (admin only)' - clarifying both optionality and permission requirements. For 'limit', it explains 'Maximum number of log entries to return' which gives purpose to the numeric parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of 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 tool's purpose with 'Get range access logs' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('range access logs'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_range_access' (which likely shows current access permissions) and 'get_range_logs' (which might be different logs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar-sounding 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. There are several sibling tools with 'get_range' prefixes (get_range, get_range_access, get_range_logs, get_range_by_user) that might overlap in functionality, but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only,' which adds useful context about authorization needs. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether validation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any rate limits, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (validation with nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, though it could benefit from more behavioral context to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'template_config' is the 'Template configuration to validate' and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only),' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not fully detail the structure or format of template_config or the implications of user_id, resulting in only partial 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 tool's purpose as 'Validate a template configuration,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'validate_config' or other validation-related tools in the list, which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'validate_config' or other validation methods. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is a parameter detail rather than usage context, so it does not constitute explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto_deploy' and 'admin only' for user_id, adding some context about deployment automation and permissions. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what 'range configuration' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and clear.
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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output specifics beyond a brief mention of 'Generated configuration and deployment result'. For a tool that likely involves configuration building and potential deployment, more context on outcomes and limitations would enhance completeness.
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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'prompt' is a 'natural language description of desired range', 'auto_deploy' controls 'Automatically deploy after building configuration', and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This clarifies the purpose and constraints of each parameter, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format or examples for the prompt.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build a range configuration from a natural language prompt.' It specifies the verb ('Build') and resource ('range configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'build_range_from_description' or 'build_range_from_scratch' by emphasizing natural language input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_config_from_description' or 'explain_range_design_decisions', which might have overlapping purposes, keeping 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'natural language prompt' and 'auto_deploy', suggesting it's for automated configuration generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_range_from_description' or 'generate_config_from_description', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., admin rights for user_id). This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only,' which adds some context about authorization needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the admin hint into the main purpose, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return content adequately. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details like permissions or side effects, but with an output schema reducing the need to explain returns, it's reasonably comprehensive for 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only),' clarifying its optionality and admin restriction. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—for example, it doesn't explain what 'range' refers to or how the user_id affects the output. With one parameter and partial semantic addition, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get /etc/hosts entries for the range.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('/etc/hosts entries for the range'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range', which might also retrieve range-related information, 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage context by mentioning 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, suggesting this tool may require administrative privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'get_range_config' or other 'get_range_*' tools), nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin hint.
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 the action ('List all available scenarios') and return format ('Dictionary of scenario keys and descriptions'), but lacks behavioral details like pagination, sorting, filtering, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a read operation 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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and the return format. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage guidance to be fully comprehensive.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
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 ('all available scenarios'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list-type siblings like list_ranges, list_templates, or list_users, which would require explicit differentiation to earn 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. With many sibling tools that list different resources (e.g., list_ranges, list_templates), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a user creation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific given the output schema exists. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
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 user creation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, permission levels, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral transparency remains incomplete.
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 description explicitly documents all 4 parameters with clear semantic explanations beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter represents (username, password, admin privileges, optional Proxmox username), adding significant value over the bare schema. The only minor gap is not explaining format constraints for parameters like password complexity.
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 ('Add a new user') and resource ('to the Ludus system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_user' or 'list_users'. It provides a complete verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this creates users, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), constraints, or when to choose this over other user management tools. The agent must infer usage context 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.
Behavior3/5
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 is 'admin only', which is crucial permission information, and mentions it returns 'List of all ranges in the system', giving basic output context. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies non-destructive).
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 appropriately brief with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose and admin requirement, followed by separate Args and Returns sections. While efficient, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be integrated more smoothly, but overall there's minimal waste.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the admin requirement and return type, but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a tool with one parameter and simple functionality, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'user_id' parameter and adds that it's 'Optional' and 'must be admin', which provides some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what effect providing a user_id has (e.g., filtering results) or the format/constraints of the user_id value, leaving gaps in 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 action ('List all ranges') and specifies the resource ('ranges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_ranges_detailed' or 'get_range_by_user', which could provide similar functionality with different scopes or detail levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some guidance by indicating this is 'admin only' and mentions the optional 'user_id' parameter, which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_ranges_detailed' or 'get_range_by_user', leaving the agent to infer based on parameter availability and admin requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the tool returns a dictionary of configurations and includes an example, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is informative but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits beyond the basic return format.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on returns and an example. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second specifies the return format, and the example illustrates usage. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly, but overall it is efficient with minimal waste.
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 complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and provides an example, but does not cover potential errors, side effects, or detailed output structure beyond 'dictionary'. For a tool with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the output and usage, earning a baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get pre-configured container definitions for common applications.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-configured container definitions'), and lists the applications covered (Splunk, Wazuh, ELK, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_container_config' or 'list_common_containers', which may have overlapping or distinct functions.
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 by mentioning that the returned configurations 'can be used with create_container_template' and provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_container_config' for custom configs or 'list_common_containers' for just names). The guidance is contextual 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. While it mentions the tool performs rollback operations and returns results with successes/failures, it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of permissions required beyond the vague 'admin only' note, no information about whether this is destructive (rollback typically implies data loss), no rate limits, no error handling specifics, and no details about what 'parallel' execution entails.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each section adds value, though the 'admin only' note could be more precisely integrated. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by parameter and return details.
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 batch mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It covers the purpose, parameters at a high level, and return format concept, but lacks details about destructive nature, permissions, error conditions, and specific output structure. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it only partially meets.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides good parameter context beyond the bare schema. It explains vm_names as 'List of VM names to rollback', snapshot_name as 'Name of snapshot to rollback to', and user_id as 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaningful semantics, though it doesn't specify format constraints or provide examples for any parameters.
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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('rollback') and resource ('multiple VMs to a snapshot'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rollback_snapshot' by specifying parallel/batch operation. The description explicitly mentions 'multiple VMs' and 'in parallel' which differentiates it from single-VM operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the mention of 'parallel' operation and the optional 'admin only' user_id parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollback_snapshot' or other batch operations. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the tool returns a 'curated list' with 'descriptions and example usage' and a 'Dictionary of common roles organized by category,' which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations such as whether the list is static or updated, any rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds details about the return value, and includes a practical example. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the example more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for its purpose and behavior. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and includes an example usage. For a simple read-only tool, this is complete enough, though it could benefit from mentioning any dependencies or constraints to reach a score of 5.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, explaining the return structure. It adds value by detailing the return format beyond what the schema provides, earning a score above the baseline of 3 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of commonly used Ansible Galaxy roles for Ludus scenarios.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of commonly used Ansible Galaxy roles'), and context ('for Ludus scenarios'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_required_roles_for_scenario' or 'list_installed_roles', which might serve related but distinct purposes.
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 by mentioning 'commonly used' roles for 'security lab scenarios,' suggesting it's for discovery or reference. The example shows it being used before 'install_galaxy_role,' indicating a workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_required_roles_for_scenario' or 'list_role_repositories,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatic fetching of latest ISO/checksum from a specific URL, weekly updates, and template creation. However, it doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. It adds value but isn't comprehensive for a creation tool.
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?
Well-structured with purpose upfront, followed by detailed args and returns sections, and an example. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the ISO URL explanation is slightly verbose), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with key 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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering inputs and high-level behavior. However, it lacks details on output structure, error cases, and operational constraints, making it incomplete for a creation tool in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 7 parameters with examples and defaults, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints (e.g., valid disk_size formats) or dependencies between parameters, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 tool creates a Kali Linux weekly template with automatic ISO detection, specifying the verb ('create'), resource ('Kali Linux weekly template'), and key functionality ('automatic latest ISO detection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_custom_os_template' or 'create_custom_template' by focusing on Kali-specific weekly updates.
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 for creating Kali templates with latest ISOs but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_custom_os_template' or 'build_template'. It mentions the ISO URL changes weekly, suggesting timeliness, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool creates templates and returns a docker-compose configuration, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement, usage context, parameter details, return info, and example. Slightly verbose but each section earns its place. Could be more front-loaded by moving the example to a separate section.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and detailed return value explanation beyond 'Template creation result with docker-compose configuration'. The example helps but doesn't fully address completeness gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in the 'Args' section, including examples and structure for the complex 'containers' parameter. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Build a custom container-based template') and resource ('for applications'), with explicit examples of applications it's designed for (Splunk, Wazuh, Grafana). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build_template' by specifying the container-based nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('perfect for deploying applications like Splunk, Wazuh, Grafana') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_container_template' (a sibling tool with similar name) or 'build_template'. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return behavior ('Range information... or None if not found') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Range information' includes. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete for operational use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter ('vm_name: Name of the VM to search for') and providing an example. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). With 0% coverage and 1 parameter, this is above baseline.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('which range contains a specific VM by name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_range', 'list_ranges', or 'list_hosts' by focusing on VM-to-range mapping rather than general range listing or host enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (searching for a VM's range) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other search or lookup tools in the sibling list, though the purpose naturally suggests its niche.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (cloning and modifying scenarios) and includes an example showing the expected input format. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the scenario_key doesn't exist.
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 well-structured with purpose statement, usage context, parameter documentation, return value, and a comprehensive example. Every section adds value, though the example is quite lengthy (showing two VM configurations). The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides parameter details, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and doesn't fully describe the return value beyond 'New scenario configuration with modifications.' For a mutation tool with no annotations, more completeness would be expected.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description compensates well. It documents all parameters in the Args section with brief explanations, provides an example showing the complex 'modifications' parameter structure, and references another tool for context. The only gap is that 'siem_type' isn't fully explained beyond having a default value in the schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Clone an existing scenario and modify it to create a new custom scenario.' It specifies the verb ('clone and modify'), resource ('scenario'), and provides concrete examples ('ad-basic' with more workstations, 'web-basic' with different applications) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_custom_range_from_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'This is useful for creating variations of existing scenarios...' and references a sibling tool ('same as create_custom_range_from_scenario'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to all relevant alternatives like 'build_range_from_scenario' or 'update_range_config'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the repository will be cloned on the Ludus server and installed, which adds useful context about the installation process. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a tool that performs installations.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and examples. It is appropriately sized, though the examples section is detailed, which is helpful but slightly reduces conciseness.
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 complexity of installing roles from Git, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well but lacks details on return values (only mentions 'Installation result with status and instructions' vaguely) and potential side effects or errors.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'role_name' (name to give the role when installed), 'git_url' (Git repository URL with an example), and 'branch' (optional branch/tag to checkout with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Install an Ansible role') and resource ('from a custom Git repository URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'install_galaxy_role' or 'install_role' by specifying the source as custom Git repositories not on Ansible Galaxy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to install roles from custom Git repositories that are not on Ansible Galaxy'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'install_galaxy_role' for Galaxy-based roles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool as a suggestion generator ('suggests enhancements'), which implies it is non-destructive and likely read-only, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or rate limits. The examples add context about output structure, but behavioral traits like idempotency or error handling are not covered.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations and examples. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the examples section is lengthy but useful for clarity. Every sentence adds value, such as distinguishing enhancement focuses.
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 complexity of a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output structure via examples, but lacks explicit details on error conditions, limitations, or integration with sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description'. The output is described in the examples, but not formally in an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'current_description' as 'The current range description or configuration intent' and 'enhancement_focus' with its options and purpose ('What to focus on for enhancements'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints for 'current_description'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest enhancements to improve a range configuration.' It specifies the verb ('suggest enhancements') and resource ('range configuration'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description' or 'optimize_resource_allocation' by focusing on enhancement recommendations rather than creation or optimization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Given a basic range description, this tool suggests additional components, capabilities, and improvements.' It implies usage for enhancing existing configurations but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'optimize_resource_allocation' for performance tuning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 that the operation is faster for parallel processing and returns results including successes and failures, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it does not cover critical aspects like permissions (e.g., admin requirements hinted by 'user_id'), potential destructive effects, rate limits, or error handling details, leaving 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage context, details parameters and returns, and includes an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a batch mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs, side effects, or output structure specifics. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more context on risks and results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear 'Args' section explaining each parameter: 'vm_names' (list of VM names), 'snapshot_name' (name for snapshots), 'description' (optional description), and 'user_id' (optional user ID, admin only). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on format constraints (e.g., VM name validation).
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 tool's purpose: 'Create snapshots for multiple VMs in parallel.' It specifies the verb ('Create snapshots'), the resource ('multiple VMs'), and distinguishes it from sequential operations. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'snapshot_host' (singular) or 'batch_remove_snapshots' (different action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'This is much faster than creating snapshots sequentially, especially for large numbers of VMs.' It implies usage for efficiency with multiple VMs but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'snapshot_host' for single VMs. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or named sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool installs roles on the Ludus server and includes examples, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds some context (e.g., common roles for Ludus) but does not fully cover behavioral traits like installation paths or confirmation prompts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, but includes extensive examples and a list of common roles that may be verbose. While informative, some content (like the full list of common roles) could be trimmed for conciseness, as not every sentence adds critical value for tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 does well by explaining parameters and providing examples. However, it lacks details on return values (only mentions 'Installation result with status' vaguely) and does not cover error cases or installation behavior fully, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It thoroughly explains both parameters: 'role_name' as 'Role name in Galaxy format' with examples, and 'version' as 'Optional version to install' with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting parameter usage and format.
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 tool's purpose: 'Install an Ansible role directly from Ansible Galaxy.' It specifies the exact action (install) and resource (Ansible role from Galaxy), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'install_role' or 'install_role_from_url' by emphasizing the Galaxy source and simplicity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'This is the simplest way to install roles' from Ansible Galaxy. It implies usage for Galaxy-sourced roles but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'install_role_from_url' for non-Galaxy sources, though the context is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool ('Build a completely custom range configuration'), which implies it's a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or what 'ready for deployment' entails. The example adds some context about the output format, but key behavioral aspects like whether this creates persistent resources or requires follow-up deployment are unclear.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value description, and a comprehensive example. While somewhat lengthy due to the detailed example, every section adds value. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose and parameters explained before the example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job of explaining the tool. It covers purpose, parameters, and provides a detailed example. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about what happens after configuration creation (deployment implications, resource allocation, etc.), but for a configuration-building tool, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains what each parameter means: 'vms: List of VM configurations (each with vm_name, hostname, template, vlan, ip_last_octet, ram_gb, cpus)', 'network_rules: Optional list of network rules', 'inter_vlan_default: Default inter-VLAN policy', 'include_siem: Whether to automatically add a SIEM server', and 'siem_type: SIEM type if include_siem is True'. The example further illustrates the structure and usage.
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 tool's purpose: 'Build a completely custom range configuration from scratch' with 'full control over every VM and network rule, not based on any existing scenario.' It specifically distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description', 'build_range_from_prompt', and 'build_range_from_skeleton' which appear to build from existing configurations or templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need 'full control over every VM and network rule' and don't want to base it on 'any existing scenario.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the distinction from other 'build_range_from_*' tools is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool's behavior as building a range configuration with customization options, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. The examples show usage but do not fully disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with a clear purpose, followed by usage context, detailed parameter explanations, return value, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or security requirements, and the output is only vaguely described as 'Complete customized range configuration' without schema. This leaves some gaps for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose with examples, such as 'skeleton_name: Base skeleton' and 'add_vms: List of VM skeleton names to add.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover all nuances like default values or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 tool's purpose: 'Build a complete range configuration starting from a skeleton' and 'Combines the power of skeleton templates with custom modifications.' It specifies the verb ('build'), resource ('range configuration'), and method ('from a skeleton'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'build_range_from_description' or 'build_range_from_scratch' by focusing on skeleton-based customization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Start with a base skeleton and add/remove VMs as needed.' It implies usage for customizing pre-defined skeletons rather than building from scratch or description. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes what the tool does (creates templates) and mentions auto-detection capabilities, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The examples show return values but don't explain error conditions.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and front-loads the core functionality. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise, and the examples are quite detailed. Overall, most content earns its place by clarifying complex parameter interactions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage through examples. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context (permissions, runtime characteristics, error handling) which would be particularly important for a template creation tool that likely involves significant processing time.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 14 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It includes an 'Args:' section explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and usage examples. The examples demonstrate how parameters interact (e.g., iso_url vs os_version, auto_detect_os behavior), adding significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 tool creates custom OS templates with specific packages and configuration, using the verb 'create' and specifying the resource 'custom OS template'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_container_template' or 'create_kali_weekly_template' by emphasizing support for ANY operating system via ISO URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (creating templates from any OS via ISO URLs) and includes examples showing different usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the examples imply it's for custom OS templates rather than predefined ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool's purpose and customization capabilities well, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this creates a new range configuration or modifies an existing one in-place, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The example shows it returns a 'Customized range configuration ready for deployment' which helps, but more behavioral context would be valuable.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, customization options, example) and front-loads the core purpose. The example is comprehensive but necessary given the complexity. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall the structure is effective and information-dense without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job providing context. It explains the purpose, parameters, return value, and provides a detailed example. The main gap is lack of output schema details, but the description states what's returned ('Customized range configuration ready for deployment'). For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is quite comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It explains all three parameters: scenario_key (base scenario to start from), customizations (dictionary of customizations), and siem_type (SIEM type to use). It even provides a comprehensive example showing exactly how to structure the customizations parameter with specific fields and values.
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 tool's purpose: 'Create a custom range configuration based on an existing scenario' with specific customization actions (add/remove VMs, change specs, modify network rules). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_range_from_scratch' or 'clone_range' by emphasizing modification of an existing scenario rather than building from scratch or simple cloning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to customize an existing scenario with modifications. It implies usage by stating 'based on an existing scenario' and listing customization options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'build_range_from_scratch' for starting from scratch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a file export operation with download capability, specifies default behavior (filename defaults to /tmp/ludus-range-config.yml, include_full_content defaults to True), and describes the return structure (file path, YAML content, download instructions). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits.
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?
Perfectly structured with purpose statement first, followed by clear parameter explanations, return description, and practical example. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, parameters, and return expectations. The example adds practical clarity. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case information, but overall it's highly complete given the complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'config' (range configuration dictionary), 'filename' (optional with default), and 'include_full_content' (boolean with default). The example further clarifies usage. The only gap is lack of detail about the 'config' dictionary structure, but the description provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
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 ('export'), resource ('range configuration'), and output format ('to a YAML file for download'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_range_backup' or 'export_metrics' by specifying the exact resource type (range configuration) and format (YAML).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (exporting configurations for use with Ludus) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_config' or 'share_range_config'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the tool retrieves configurations, implying a read-only operation, and mentions customization parameters, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it could be more informative about what 'complete range skeleton' entails in practice.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, available skeletons, example) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating skeleton names in the 'Available skeletons' list after mentioning them earlier). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, return values, available skeletons, and examples. However, it lacks details on output format or potential errors, and with no output schema, more information on the return structure would be beneficial for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 6 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, gives examples (e.g., 'name: Skeleton name (e.g., "basic-ad", "enterprise-ad", "red-team")'), lists defaults, and clarifies usage for specific skeletons, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get a complete range skeleton configuration' and 'Retrieves a fully-configured range skeleton with all VMs and network rules.' It specifies the verb ('Get', 'Retrieves') and resource ('range skeleton configuration'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pre-configured skeletons rather than building from scratch or other methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool by listing available skeletons (e.g., 'basic-ad', 'enterprise-ad', 'red-team') and noting that 'Some skeletons support additional customization parameters.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'build_range_from_skeleton' or 'get_range_config', which might be relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds useful context about fallback mechanisms (CLI vs. HTTP API) and reliability aspects, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is informative but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation support.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by implementation details, return format, and an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it operates, and what it returns with an example. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., what fields are in 'details'), but the example provides adequate guidance for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters are present, and the description does not attempt to explain non-existent parameters.
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 ('List all installed Ansible roles') and resource ('on the Ludus server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_role_installed' or 'install_role'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool by explaining it 'Uses the ludus CLI with --url when available for reliable remote access' and 'Falls back to HTTP API if CLI is not available', offering implementation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'check_role_installed' or 'get_role_info', missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the operation as a read-only list function (implied by 'List all'), specifies the source ('GitHub repositories'), and clarifies that these roles are not yet installed ('must be cloned... before installation'). It also describes the return format ('Dictionary with available role repositories and their GitHub URLs'), which is crucial since there's no output schema. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs.
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 efficiently structured with three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds crucial context about the role state, and the third describes the return value. The example is brief and relevant. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the nature of the roles, and the return format. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidelines versus alternatives, but for a simple list tool, this is a minor omission.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds value by focusing on the tool's purpose and output instead.
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 ('List all roles') and resource ('available from GitHub repositories') with additional clarifying context ('directory-based roles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_installed_roles' by specifying these are repository-based roles not yet installed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by stating 'These roles must be cloned on the Ludus server before installation,' which suggests this tool is used to discover roles for potential installation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'install_role' or 'list_installed_roles,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes what gets enhanced (monitoring, logging, detection), notes that 'SIEM server will be automatically added if not present', and mentions post-deployment steps like dashboard configuration. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections like 'Args', 'Returns', 'Examples', and 'Notes', but it is overly verbose with extensive lists (e.g., 'Monitoring Capabilities', 'Detection Rules') that could be condensed. Some sentences, like the bullet points, do not earn their place for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains inputs, outputs, examples, and behavioral notes. However, it lacks explicit error conditions, authentication requirements, or performance implications, leaving minor gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all 4 parameters: 'config' is explained as a Ludus range configuration, 'monitoring_level' with enum values and capabilities, 'siem_type' with platform options, and 'detection_focus' with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('apply', 'enhance') and resources ('defender profile', 'Ludus configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_adversary_profile' by focusing on defensive monitoring capabilities for blue team training rather than offensive actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., 'blue team training', 'SOC practice', 'threat hunting exercises'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'apply_adversary_profile' for offensive scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool as explanatory and educational, which implies it's a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond the return dictionary structure. The description adds some context (educational focus) but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by educational value, args, returns, and examples. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying usage, parameters, or outputs without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and detailed return expectations, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (explanatory with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return structure in detail. However, it does not specify output format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential errors, which could be useful given no output schema. The examples enhance completeness but slight gaps remain in full behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'prompt' is undocumented in schema), but the description compensates fully. It defines 'prompt' as 'The range description or scenario you want explained' and provides three concrete examples (e.g., 'Why do I need a domain controller AND workstations for an AD lab?'), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively addresses the low schema coverage with detailed semantic context.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Explain the design decisions and best practices for a range configuration request' and clarifies it 'helps users understand WHY certain choices are made when building a cyber range, providing educational value beyond just generating configs.' This is a specific verb ('explain') + resource ('design decisions and best practices') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on building, deploying, or managing ranges (e.g., build_range_from_description, deploy_range, get_range_config).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to understand 'why' choices are made in range design, offering 'educational value beyond just generating configs.' It implies usage for learning or rationale explanation rather than operational tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for actual configuration generation) or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from tools like generate_config_from_description is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can return 'needs_clarification' status with specific questions, provides educational explanations, multiple suggestions, and clarification requests. It also notes the generated config is ready for deployment with 'deploy_range()' and suggests reviewing enhancements. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Notes), but it's lengthy with extensive examples and notes that could be condensed. While informative, some sentences like the detailed example scenarios might be excessive for a concise tool definition, though they do illustrate usage effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (AI-powered configuration generation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job. It explains the return dictionary structure in detail, provides multiple usage examples, and notes integration with 'deploy_range()'. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations or edge cases beyond ambiguity handling, leaving some gaps for a fully comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: 'description' as natural language input that can be conversational, 'include_suggestions' for enhancement suggestions with default True, and 'include_clarifications' for requesting missing info with default True. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a complete Ludus range configuration from natural language description.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('Ludus range configuration'), and distinguishes from sibling 'build_range_from_description' by highlighting enhanced AI capabilities like better natural language understanding, clarification requests, and multiple suggestions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for generating configurations from natural language descriptions, especially when users want AI-powered enhancements. It explicitly compares to 'build_range_from_description' as an 'enhanced AI-powered version,' but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention other alternatives like 'build_range_from_scratch' or 'build_range_from_skeleton' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves the current configuration, prepares it for download in YAML format, and includes details like optional admin-only functionality for 'user_id' and default filename. It also mentions the return format ('YAML content') and provides an example, though it lacks explicit information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, example, use cases) and front-loaded key information. However, the 'Use Cases' section is somewhat verbose with five bullet points, some of which overlap (e.g., 'modify and redeploy' and 'make variations'), slightly reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, examples, and use cases. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, or response structure beyond YAML content, which could enhance completeness for a download-focused tool.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'user_id' is described as 'Optional user ID (admin only - for getting other users' configs)' and 'filename' as 'Optional filename to save to (defaults to /tmp/current-range-config.yml)'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail parameter constraints or validation rules.
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 tool's purpose: 'retrieves your currently deployed range configuration from Ludus and provides it in YAML format for download.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('range configuration'), and output format ('YAML format for download'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml' by emphasizing the download-ready aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool through the 'Use Cases' section, listing scenarios like backup, modification, sharing, version control, and cloning. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'export_range_config_to_yaml'), which prevents a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes what the tool does: parsing descriptions, building configurations with VMs, network rules, and SIEM, and automating tasks like detecting requirements and adding components. It covers key behaviors such as automatic detection of AD/domain needs and SIEM inclusion, though it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized, starting with a clear purpose, followed by sections for args, returns, examples, and automation details. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining parameter roles and providing illustrative examples. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details, but overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and automation behaviors, and includes examples to guide input. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the 'complete range configuration') and potential limitations or errors, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'description' is a natural language input with examples, 'siem_type' specifies SIEM types like 'wazuh', 'resource_profile' defines allocation levels, and 'include_siem' controls monitoring inclusion. This clarifies parameter purposes and usage, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool's purpose: 'Build a custom range configuration from a natural language description.' It specifies the verb 'build' and resource 'range configuration,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'build_range_from_prompt' or 'build_range_from_scratch' by emphasizing natural language input. The examples further illustrate its unique capability to interpret descriptive requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the user has a natural language description of a desired range/scenario. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on automated parsing from descriptions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'build_range_from_scratch' for manual configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the implementation details (uses ludus CLI with --url, falls back to HTTP API, no SSH required), which helps the agent understand reliability and access methods. It does not mention error handling or performance aspects, but covers key operational traits.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, implementation details, parameter explanation, return value, and an example. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the example section is slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by adding practical guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, the parameter, return value, and usage example. It could briefly mention error cases or limitations, but covers the essentials well for a simple check operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'role_name' with its purpose and provides examples (e.g., 'ludus-ad-content', 'badsectorlabs.ludus_adcs'), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully addresses the parameter semantics gap.
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 verb ('check') and resource ('if a specific Ansible role is installed'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'install_role' or 'list_installed_roles' by focusing on checking a single role's installation status rather than installing or listing all roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to check if a role is installed, with an example showing it should be followed by 'install_role' if not installed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list_installed_roles' for bulk checks) or name alternatives, though the example implies a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool configures access for automatic installation, requires appropriate permissions, recommends SSH keys for security, and allows enabling/disabling installation. It mentions that SSH password is less secure but does not cover rate limits, error handling, or detailed 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, security note, parameter explanations, return info, and examples. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details; every sentence adds value, though the example section is lengthy but useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (configuration tool with security implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and security, but lacks details on return values (only mentions 'Configuration result with status') and potential errors or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'SSH hostname or IP address', 'SSH username', 'Path to SSH private key file'), security implications, defaults, and usage in examples, fully documenting all 5 parameters.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('configure SSH access') and resources ('automatic role installation on Ludus server'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SSH configuration for role installation, unlike tools like 'install_role' or 'configure' general tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for automatic SSH-based role installation on Ludus server) and includes a security note recommending SSH keys. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'check') and describes the return format ('Dictionary with required roles and their installation status'). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The example helps but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidance, documents parameters and return value, and includes a practical example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The example is integrated naturally into the workflow explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters, return format, and usage context. The example provides concrete implementation guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error conditions or what happens with invalid scenario keys. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it's quite comprehensive but not perfect.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'scenario_key' is explained as 'Scenario identifier' with an example, and 'siem_type' is explained as 'SIEM type if scenario uses SIEM' with enumerated values. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the default value behavior for 'siem_type'.
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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of required Ansible roles for a specific scenario'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ensure_scenario_roles' by focusing on checking rather than installing roles, and from 'check_role_installed' by being scenario-specific rather than role-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('to check which roles are needed before deploying a scenario') and provides a clear alternative ('Then use `ensure_scenario_roles()` to automatically install missing roles'). It establishes a workflow sequence, making the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by specifying the method ('Uses the ludus CLI with --url') and constraints ('No SSH required'), which are not evident from the input schema alone. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage notes, parameter details, return information, and examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, with examples. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return dictionary structure, but the provided information is sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'role_name' in the 'Args' section and provides examples with both Galaxy and directory-based roles, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively covers the parameter semantics, though it could include more on format or validation rules.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific role'), including what information is retrieved ('installation method and requirements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_role_installed' (which likely checks installation status) and 'list_installed_roles' (which lists roles), making the scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage by mentioning 'Uses the ludus CLI with --url when available for reliable remote access' and 'No SSH required for checking role information,' which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_role_installed' or 'list_installed_roles,' for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with skeleton names as keys and descriptions as values, and includes an example of the return format. It also lists specific skeleton types (e.g., 'basic-ad', 'enterprise-ad'), which adds context about available options. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by details on returns and examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the output, the third lists available skeletons, and the fourth clarifies the return format with an example. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and provides an example. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, which is implied but not confirmed without annotations. The lack of output schema is compensated by the detailed return description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately notes there are no inputs by not discussing parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is applied as the description focuses on output and usage without unnecessary parameter details.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'range skeleton templates', specifying it returns 'complete range configurations for common scenarios' and 'fully-configured lab environments ready for deployment'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_range_templates' or 'list_vm_skeletons' by focusing specifically on pre-configured skeleton templates rather than general templates or VM skeletons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing available skeletons for deployment scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_range_from_skeleton' or 'get_range_skeleton'. It provides clear context about what the skeletons are for (e.g., 'common scenarios', 'lab environments'), but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it stops an active deployment, allows resumption via deploy_range, and mentions admin-only usage for the user_id parameter. However, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example Workflow, Note), but includes redundant information. For instance, the 'Equivalent to' line and some note items (e.g., 'Resume deployment') repeat earlier points, slightly reducing efficiency without adding new value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with admin constraints) and lack of annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more detail on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what 'Abort result' entails) would enhance completeness.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (user_id). The description adds meaningful context by noting 'Optional user ID (admin only)', clarifying its optional nature and restricted usage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't specify format or validation rules.
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 ('Abort a range deployment') and resource ('range deployment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'abort_and_remove_range' which combines aborting with deletion. The verb 'stops' reinforces the action, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this before deleting a range that is currently deploying') and provides alternatives for post-abort actions (e.g., delete_range, abort_and_remove_range, deploy_range). It also references sibling tools like 'deploy_range' for resuming, offering clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's destructive ('Permanently removes'), has prerequisites (abort deployment first), includes a confirmation flag, and mentions admin-only usage for user_id. It doesn't cover rate limits or error responses, but provides substantial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical information (purpose, warning, prerequisite). The example and workflow sections are useful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, guidelines, behavioral context, and parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or permission details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'confirm: Confirmation flag (must be True to proceed)' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or default behaviors for user_id.
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 ('Delete the entire range') and specifies what gets removed ('all associated VMs, snapshots, and data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_range_by_user' or 'abort_and_remove_range' by emphasizing complete destruction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'If a deployment is in progress, abort it first with abort_range_deployment()' and a workflow is outlined, clearly indicating prerequisites and when to use this tool versus alternatives like abort_range_deployment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the confirmation requirement ('requires confirmation', 'confirm=True'), safety measures ('prevent accidental deletion'), irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), and pre-deletion details ('shows range details before deletion'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the critical destructive aspects well.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) and front-loads the core purpose. Most sentences earn their place, though the safety section could be more concise. The example is helpful but slightly verbose. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a destructive operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 provides good context: purpose, usage, parameters, safety, and irreversible nature. It lacks details on error conditions or return value structure ('Deletion result with confirmation details' is vague), but covers the essential aspects given the complexity. The example partially compensates for missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'user_id' as 'User ID whose range to delete' and 'confirm' as 'Must be set to True to actually delete (safety measure)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for user_id (e.g., string pattern).
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 ('delete a specific user's range') and resource ('range by user ID'), distinguishing it from generic deletion tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_ranges_by_status' in the sibling list. It explicitly notes the selective nature ('rather than destroying all ranges'), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('selectively delete a single range by user ID') and when not to ('rather than destroying all ranges'). It includes a practical example showing a two-step process: first check with 'get_range_by_user', then confirm deletion. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and outlines prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key traits: the confirmation requirement ('requires confirmation', 'Must be set to True'), safety preview ('Shows preview of what will be deleted'), and irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'). It also implies destructive behavior through 'Delete' and 'cleaning up'. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The text is dense with useful details, and there is no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with safety measures), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job. It covers purpose, parameters, safety, and usage context. However, it lacks details on return values beyond 'Deletion results for matching ranges' (e.g., format, error cases) and does not mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'status_filter' is explained with examples ('ERROR', 'FAILED', 'DEPLOYING') and context ('Status to filter by'), and 'confirm' is described with its safety role and requirement ('Must be set to True to actually delete'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ranges matching a specific status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_range' (which likely deletes a single range) and 'cleanup_old_ranges' (which may use different criteria). It specifies the exact scope: all ranges filtered by status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for cleaning up failed deployments or test ranges'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., 'delete_range' for single ranges, 'cleanup_old_ranges' for time-based cleanup). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it generates fresh configurations with no state reuse, requires no file uploads, and outlines an internal workflow (e.g., configuration generation, PUT/POST operations). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are important for a complex deployment tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with key information (purpose, important notes, customization details), but it is overly verbose with extensive lists (e.g., 13 scenario options) and redundant sections like 'Internal Workflow' and 'Natural Language Translation'. Some sentences, such as the detailed scenario list, could be trimmed or referenced externally without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on deployment process and customization. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or security prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by providing detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including lists of available scenarios (e.g., 'redteam-lab-lite'), SIEM types, and customization options. Examples and natural language translations further clarify parameter usage, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Deploy a scenario with optional SIEM integration and customization.' It specifies the verb ('deploy') and resource ('scenario'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'preview_scenario', 'abort_range_deployment', and 'smart_deploy' by detailing its unique role in generating fresh configurations and handling deployment workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It recommends using 'preview_scenario()' first, mentions 'abort_range_deployment()' and 'delete_range()' as optional preparatory steps, and advises considering 'smart_deploy()' for automated workflows. It also distinguishes usage based on customization needs (e.g., 'customize=True' vs. 'randomize=True').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly explains the tool's multi-step process (checking, installing, reporting), conditions for automatic installation (Galaxy roles vs. directory-based roles with SSH), and output format ('Dictionary with installation status'). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but covers core behavior adequately for a tool with no annotations.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, workflow, args, returns, example) and uses bold for emphasis without excess. It is slightly verbose in the workflow section, but every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining SSH dependencies), making it appropriately detailed for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return value, with practical examples. It could explicitly detail the return dictionary structure, but the context provided is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'scenario_key' is explained as a scenario identifier with an example, 'siem_type' is clarified as relevant only if the scenario uses SIEM with listed options, and 'auto_install' is detailed with its default and effect on behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify SIEM type defaults or constraints exhaustively.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Ensure all required roles for a scenario are installed, installing missing ones automatically.' It specifies the verb ('ensure'), resource ('roles for a scenario'), and mechanism ('installing missing ones automatically'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'install_role' or 'get_required_roles_for_scenario' by emphasizing automation and pre-deployment readiness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the recommended MCP tool to use before deploying a scenario.' It includes an MCP Workflow section detailing usage context, prerequisites (e.g., SSH configuration), and alternatives (e.g., 'install_role' for individual roles), with examples showing both automatic and manual modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes what the tool does (health check), how it operates (uses ludus CLI if available), and what it returns (detailed status metrics). It does not mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but covers core behavior well for a read-only diagnostic 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details and a clear bulleted list of return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, method (ludus CLI preference), and detailed return values, which aligns with the output schema's role. No gaps exist for this diagnostic tool.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's operation and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Check health') and resources ('Ludus MCP server and Ludus API connectivity'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on range management, deployment, templates, users, or monitoring rather than server health diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Check health... connectivity'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It mentions using 'ludus CLI if available for more reliable connectivity testing,' which implies a preference but not a strict alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic handling of two role types, retry logic for transient failures, SSH dependency for directory-based roles, and fallback to manual instructions. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read/write operation, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, bullet points for automation features, bold section for directory-based roles, and separate Args/Returns/Example sections. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded; the example section is lengthy, though informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. It references related tools and provides examples. However, it lacks details on error handling, output structure, and exact return values, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'role_name' examples distinguish Galaxy vs. directory-based roles, 'role_url' is clarified as optional and usually not needed, and 'max_retries' is explained with its default. This covers all three parameters effectively, though it could detail format constraints for 'role_name'.
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 explicitly states the verb ('Install') and resource ('Ansible role on the Ludus server'), and distinguishes between two specific installation methods (Galaxy roles vs. directory-based roles). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'install_galaxy_role' and 'install_role_from_url' by covering both methods in one tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for installing both Galaxy roles and directory-based roles. It specifies prerequisites for directory-based roles (SSH configuration via 'configure_ssh_role_installation'), mentions retry logic, and references the alternative 'check_role_installed' for verification. This gives clear context for when and how to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), returns a dictionary structure, and includes example output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 efficiently structured: it states the purpose upfront, explains the output format, provides usage context with categorized examples, and includes a clear return example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns (including structure and examples), and how the output can be used, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, adding value by explaining the return structure and providing an example, exceeding 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.
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 ('List all available VM skeleton templates') and resource ('VM skeleton templates'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_range_skeletons' or 'get_vm_skeleton' by focusing on templates rather than deployed ranges or individual skeletons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage ('These skeletons can be used as starting points for building custom VMs'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_range_skeletons' or 'get_vm_skeleton' for different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 describes the tool's behavior as a two-step process (abort then remove), mentions it's a convenience function, and implies destructive action through the confirm parameter. However, it doesn't specify permissions (e.g., admin vs. user), rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by context about it being a convenience function, a code-like breakdown of equivalent commands, parameter explanations, return value, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the information is organized logically for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and provides an example. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what the 'combined abort and deletion results' output entails, which could be important for a destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: 'confirm: Confirmation flag (must be True to proceed)' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only).' This adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema's type information, explaining the confirm requirement and admin restriction for user_id. However, it doesn't specify format for user_id or provide examples of valid values.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Abort any active deployment and then remove the range.' It uses specific verbs ('abort', 'remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('range'). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the two sibling tools it combines: abort_range_deployment() and delete_range().
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as a 'convenience function that combines abort_range_deployment() and delete_range().' It clearly indicates this is an alternative to running those two tools separately, and the example shows usage for 'current user's range.' It also mentions the confirm parameter requirement, which implies a safety mechanism.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it transforms configurations, injects vulnerabilities for educational purposes, includes safety warnings, and details implementation via Ansible roles. However, it doesn't specify mutation effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible) or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a tool with significant impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections like Args, Returns, Examples, and Notes, but it's lengthy with repetitive details (e.g., listing Ansible roles and vulnerability categories). While informative, some content could be condensed; the front-loaded purpose is clear, but later sections add bulk without always earning their place in a concise tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, return values (detailed dictionary), examples, safety notes, and implementation details. Given the context signals (4 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage), it provides all necessary information for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all four parameters: 'config' (Ludus range configuration), 'threat_level' (with enum-like values and examples), 'target_vms' (optional VM targeting), and 'include_documentation' (boolean for educational docs). It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, including examples and vulnerability categories linked to parameters.
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 tool's purpose: 'Apply adversary profile to inject realistic vulnerabilities for red team training.' It specifies the verb ('apply'), resource ('adversary profile'), and transformation effect ('inject realistic vulnerabilities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_defender_profile' or 'apply_template' which serve different security purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists use cases ('Perfect for: - Red team training and practice - Security testing scenarios - Learning exploitation techniques - Purple team exercises') and includes critical warnings ('⚠️ These vulnerabilities are for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY ⚠️ Deploy ONLY in isolated lab environments ⚠️ NEVER expose these systems to production or the internet'), providing clear guidance on when and how to use this tool safely versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 the tool retrieves available tags for 'resuming/partial deployments' and includes a note about admin-only access for the optional 'user_id' parameter. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond the admin hint.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, examples, and a list of common tags. While slightly verbose due to the tag list, each section adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of available Ansible tags'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and provides practical examples, leaving output details to the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'user_id' parameter as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding crucial context about its optionality and restricted access. While it doesn't detail format or constraints, this significantly improves over the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get available Ansible tags for the current range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Ansible tags'), and scope ('for the current range'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_range' or 'get_range_config' that retrieve different range-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to see what tags are available for resuming/partial deployments.' It also provides a concrete example of how the output can be used with another tool ('deploy_range(tags="user,domain")'), effectively guiding usage in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves a configuration that can be used directly or customized, specifies the return type ('Complete VM configuration dictionary ready for use'), and provides examples of usage. It does not mention error handling, performance, or authentication needs, but covers core operational aspects adequately given the lack of annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage notes, parameter explanations, return value, available skeletons list, and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and the structure guides the user from general to specific information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters with examples, return value, and available options. The lack of output schema is compensated by specifying the return type. It provides all necessary context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'name' is a skeleton name with examples (e.g., 'dc-2022', 'kali'), and that 'customizations' is an optional dict for overriding fields with examples (e.g., {'hostname': 'mydc', 'ram_gb': 8}). This provides clear semantics and usage context for both parameters.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get', 'Retrieves') and resource ('VM skeleton template configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it retrieves pre-configured templates rather than building or managing ranges. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'build_range_from_skeleton' or 'list_vm_skeletons' by focusing on retrieval of a specific skeleton.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve a pre-configured VM skeleton for use in range configuration or customization. It implies usage by listing available skeletons and providing examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'list_vm_skeletons' for listing available skeletons instead of retrieving one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing the 6-step workflow, noting 'NO FILE UPLOAD REQUIRED', and explaining what each boolean parameter controls. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions beyond 'admin only' for user_id, or error handling specifics, but provides substantial 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (description, workflow, when to use, args, returns, example), but slightly verbose. The workflow list could be more concise, and some repetition exists (e.g., 'recommended' appears multiple times). Overall efficient but not maximally tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex deployment tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, workflow, parameters, and includes an example. It doesn't detail return structure (relying on output schema) or error cases, but provides comprehensive guidance for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section, including default values, examples (scenario_key), and special notes (user_id is 'admin only'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 tool performs 'smart deployment with validation, optional snapshot, and auto-monitoring' and specifies it's for deploying scenarios. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with deploy_scenario() and deploy_range() in the 'When to use' section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use smart_deploy() for most deployments (recommended)', 'Use deploy_scenario() if you need more control or don't want validation', and 'Use deploy_range() only if you have a custom configuration dict'. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Delete all ranges'), safety mechanisms ('confirm=True', 'preview of what will be deleted'), and protection logic ('Explicitly protects specified user ranges'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or performance 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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) that make it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement sets purpose, sections provide necessary details, and the safety section addresses critical concerns without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with safety measures) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, safety, and provides an example. However, it doesn't detail the return value ('Deletion results' is vague) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters thoroughly: 'keep_user_ids' is described as 'List of user IDs whose ranges should be KEPT (not deleted)' and 'confirm' as 'Must be set to True to actually delete (safety measure)'. The example further clarifies usage with concrete values.
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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ranges'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it deletes ranges except those belonging to specified users. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_range_by_user' by focusing on selective deletion based on user IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use ('Useful for cleaning up test/temporary ranges while keeping production ones'), includes a safety measure ('confirm=True to actually delete'), and implicitly suggests alternatives by specifying what it does not delete (ranges of specified users). This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over other deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does an excellent job describing deployment behaviors: supporting both full deployments and resuming partial deployments, explaining how to use tags and limit filters, mentioning that it can resume after pause/abort, and providing common Ansible tags. However, it doesn't explicitly mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, though 'deploy' implies mutation.
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 well-structured with clear sections (full deployment, resume, common tags, args, returns, use cases, workflow) but is quite lengthy. While every section adds value, it could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important guidance first, and the structure helps navigation despite the length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a deployment tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral context, use cases, and workflow examples. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on how to use the tool rather than what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information. It explains each parameter's purpose: config (required for full deployment), tags (comma-separated Ansible tags), limit (VM matching pattern), only_roles (limit user-defined roles), force (force deployment if testing enabled), and user_id (admin only). It provides examples, formatting guidance, and usage context that goes far beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: deploying a range from configuration with optional filters for resuming. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (deploy_scenario, smart_deploy) and specifying this is for custom configurations, not predefined scenarios. The verb 'deploy' is specific and the resource 'range' is clearly identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating 'IMPORTANT: For deploying predefined scenarios... use deploy_scenario() or smart_deploy() instead.' It also clearly defines three specific use cases for this tool and provides detailed examples of when to use different parameter combinations for full vs. resume deployments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' and 'Returns'), returns a dictionary structure, and provides example usage. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 structured: purpose statement, return value explanation, and practical example. Every sentence earns its place. The example is particularly valuable for showing how this tool integrates with create_custom_os_template.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the results. The example bridges the gap to the sibling tool create_custom_os_template, making this description self-contained and actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('common ISO download URLs for popular operating systems'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ISO URLs specifically, unlike other tools that handle templates, containers, or ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'that can be used with create_custom_os_template' and provides a concrete example showing the workflow. It clearly indicates this is a reference tool for obtaining ISO URLs to feed into another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes what the tool does: checks deployment logs for ADWS errors, waits for ADWS initialization (5-15 minutes typical), retries failed tasks if auto_retry=True, and provides status updates. It mentions time ranges and default behaviors, though it doesn't cover error handling or permission requirements beyond the user_id parameter note.
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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, bullet points, 'When to use', 'What this does', Args, Returns, Example). It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex behavior. Minor redundancy exists between the bullet points and 'What this does' section, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (recovery operations with waiting and retry logic), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and includes an example. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: wait_minutes (minutes to wait, default 10, max 30), auto_retry (automatically retry failed tasks after wait, default True), and user_id (optional user ID, admin only). The description adds crucial context beyond the bare schema, including defaults, constraints, and usage implications.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Handle Active Directory Web Services (ADWS) recovery for stuck deployments.' It specifies the exact problem domain (ADWS errors during Active Directory deployments) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on recovery operations rather than deployment, configuration, or monitoring tasks listed among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a dedicated 'When to use:' section with three specific scenarios: deployment failed with ADWS error messages, deployment stuck on OU configuration tasks, and DC VM deployed but AD services not fully started. This provides clear, actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively discloses key behaviors: the tool returns a dictionary with example names and descriptions, and the examples are directly usable for deployment. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps given the tool's simple read-only nature.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on examples and returns, and ends with a practical usage example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage, behavioral output, and includes an example, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in this context.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by explaining the return format (dictionary with names and descriptions) and providing an example, adding value beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available YAML configuration examples'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_yaml_example' by focusing on listing examples rather than retrieving content, which is evident from the example provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get ready-to-use YAML examples for deployment with Ludus. It also names an alternative tool ('get_yaml_example') for retrieving specific YAML content, clearly differentiating usage contexts and preventing confusion with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly states this is a 'dry-run tool' that 'without actually modifying the configuration', which effectively communicates it's a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also describes the return structure in detail, though it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage context, then details parameters and returns in organized sections, and concludes with practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what each parameter means, and details the return structure with specific fields. The examples further clarify usage. This is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly despite the lack of structured metadata.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning: 'config: The Ludus range configuration to analyze', 'profile_type: Type of profile to preview ("adversary" or "defender")', and 'profile_level: Level to preview (threat level for adversary, monitoring level for defender)'. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('preview changes', 'shows what would happen') and resources ('profile', 'config'), and explicitly distinguishes it from actual modification tools by emphasizing it's a 'dry-run tool' that 'without actually modifying the configuration'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_adversary_profile and apply_defender_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding the impact before committing to changes') and implicitly when not to use it (when you want to actually apply changes, use the apply_* sibling tools instead). The examples further reinforce the appropriate contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it generates a 'FRESH configuration preview' (implying idempotent or non-destructive behavior), builds scenarios 'from scratch' with each call, and details what the preview includes (VMs, network topology, resource requirements, deployment estimates). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, highlights important behavioral notes in uppercase, details parameters and returns in labeled sections, and ends with a practical workflow example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (previewing deployment scenarios), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, parameter meanings, and what the preview returns (with specific examples like VM list and network topology). The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description focuses on operational context effectively.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'scenario_key' as a 'Scenario identifier', 'siem_type' as 'SIEM type to include' with examples, and 'resource_profile' as 'Resource allocation profile' with options. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview a scenario before deployment with detailed information.' It specifies the verb ('preview'), resource ('scenario'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deploy_scenario' by emphasizing it's for verification before deployment. The description is specific and clearly differentiates from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this BEFORE deploy_scenario to verify what will be deployed.' It includes a recommended workflow with step-by-step instructions, clearly positioning this as a pre-deployment verification step and naming the alternative tool ('deploy_scenario'). This gives clear context and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns complete YAML content as a string, specifies that the output is ready to save and deploy with Ludus, and includes an example with deployment commands. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps given the tool's simple read-only nature.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by returns, args, returns, available examples, and an example usage. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the structure guides the user from high-level intent to specific implementation details efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return value, and deployment context, addressing all necessary aspects for a simple retrieval tool. The inclusion of example names and deployment steps adds practical completeness without overloading the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by clearly explaining the single parameter 'name' as the 'Example name', listing the three valid values ('basic_ad', 'with_siem', 'web_app_lab') with brief descriptions of each, and providing an example usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, ensuring the parameter is well-understood.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('YAML configuration example'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieving pre-built YAML examples rather than generating, exporting, or managing configurations like 'export_range_config_to_yaml' or 'generate_config_from_description'. It explicitly lists available examples to reinforce its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating when to use this tool ('Get a ready-to-use YAML configuration example') and includes an example with deployment instructions, implicitly distinguishing it from alternatives like 'list_yaml_examples' (which likely lists rather than retrieves content) or 'build_range_from_description' (which generates rather than fetches). The context of 'ready-to-use' and direct file-saving hints at its specific use case.
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:

[![Ludus-FastMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Ludus-FastMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP)

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/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP'

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