Open WebUI MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools cover distinct resources like chats, files, models, and users, but there is significant overlap in CRUD operations across different resource types, which could cause confusion. For example, 'delete_chat', 'delete_file', 'delete_folder', etc., all follow the same pattern but target different entities, potentially leading to misselection if the agent isn't clear on the resource context.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'create_channel', 'get_channel', 'update_channel', and 'delete_channel'. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without confusion from mixed naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 82 tools, the count is excessive for the Open WebUI domain, making the surface overwhelming and difficult to manage. This many tools suggests poor scoping, as many operations could be consolidated or generalized, leading to potential inefficiency and confusion for agents.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all key resources in Open WebUI, including chats, files, models, users, and knowledge bases. There are no obvious gaps, with tools for creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, listing, and specialized actions like sharing or querying, ensuring agents can handle full workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 82 of 82 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implies a mutation but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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 1 required parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema explanation in the description, it is severely incomplete. The description does not address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It does not mention 'memory_id' or 'content', leaving both parameters undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, offering no semantic details beyond the tool name.
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 'Update an existing memory' restates the tool name 'update_memory' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'memory' but lacks detail about what aspects are updated or how it differs from similar tools like 'delete_memory' or 'reset_memories'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing memory ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_memory', 'reset_memories', or 'query_memories', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent tools), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Delete a function.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, low schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which might handle return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, prerequisites, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite the output schema potentially covering response details.
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 the parameter 'function_id' only labeled generically. The description adds no semantic details about the parameter, such as what constitutes a valid function ID, where to find it, or format examples. It doesn't compensate 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a function' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('function'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling deletion tools like delete_channel or delete_file, nor does it clarify what type of function is being deleted (e.g., code function, mathematical function, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the function ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like delete_all_chats or toggle_function, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get folder details' but offers no information on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data about a folder.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.
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 description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at what details are returned or contextualize the tool's role among siblings. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks basic operational context.
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%, with the single parameter 'folder_id' documented only as 'Folder ID' in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, failing to explain what a folder ID is, where to find it, or format requirements. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 folder details' restates the tool name 'get_folder' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It provides a basic verb+resource combination but lacks specificity about what details are retrieved or how it differs from similar tools like 'list_folders' or 'update_folder'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_folders' (for listing multiple folders) and 'update_folder' (for modifying folders), the description fails to indicate that this tool is for retrieving details of a specific folder identified by ID, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Delete a folder' implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it cascades to contained items, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for behavioral context), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like permanence, permissions, cascading effects, or error conditions that an agent needs to understand before invoking a delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'folder_id' has only a generic 'Folder ID' description), and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. For a single-parameter tool where the schema offers minimal semantic information, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent with inadequate understanding of what constitutes a valid folder_id.
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 'Delete a folder' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (folder), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_file, delete_chat, or delete_channel, which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern without specifying what distinguishes folder deletion from other deletion 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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_file, delete_chat, delete_channel, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when folder deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations or what prerequisites might exist for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned details. This leaves the agent with minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Get details for a specific tool.' It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and target, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks context on behavior and usage. It's adequate for a simple lookup tool but misses opportunities to clarify scope and alternatives, making it just viable.
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 (only 'Tool ID' as a placeholder). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'tool' refers to in this context, how to obtain the tool_id, or what format it expects. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a specific tool' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'tool details', making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_tools' or 'get_tool_servers' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'get_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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_tool' over 'list_tools' for listing all tools, or 'get_tool_servers' for server information, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a tool ID. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Create') without any details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the expected outcome beyond creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the basic function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 1 parameter (though nested), and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions or external knowledge.
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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines parameter names and types without explaining semantics. The description doesn't compensate by clarifying what 'name' and 'description' mean in context (e.g., naming constraints, description purpose), leaving parameters inadequately 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 ('Create') and resource ('new team chat channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_channels' or 'update_channel' by specifying creation rather than listing or modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_group' or 'create_folder', which would require more specific context about what makes a 'team chat channel' unique.
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 appropriate permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for existing channels), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'create_group' for different purposes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Delete a chat.', a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be overly brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (though unspecified), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, failing to compensate for the sparse structured data.
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%, with the single parameter 'chat_id' only labeled as 'Chat ID' in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, failing to explain what a chat ID is, how to obtain it, or format requirements, leaving parameter 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 'Delete a chat' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (chat), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_all_chats', 'archive_chat', or 'delete_channel', leaving ambiguity about scope and alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_all_chats' or 'archive_chat'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or what constitutes a deletable chat, 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 full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., breaking dependencies), or rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral risks, parameter guidance, and usage distinctions from sibling tools. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description doesn't provide enough information 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%, with one parameter (tool_id) undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'tool_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., UUID, name). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a tool'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes a 'tool' in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_channel, delete_chat, or delete_function. The description merely restates the tool name without additional 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 (e.g., needing the tool ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system tools), or relationships with sibling tools like delete_all_tools (which doesn't exist) or create_tool. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, making it structurally sound despite lacking detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one required parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain input semantics, behavioral traits, or usage context. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps, making the overall context insufficient for effective tool selection.
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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'prompt template' but doesn't detail the input structure (e.g., command, title, content) or their purposes. This leaves the single required parameter 'params' undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the 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 'Update a prompt template' clearly states the action (update) and resource (prompt template), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', making it somewhat vague about scope and 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing prompt to update), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', leaving usage context entirely implicit.
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' which hints at authorization needs, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two phrases, front-loading the core purpose and the critical admin constraint. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with a nested parameter object), lack of annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It misses crucial details like parameter guidance, error conditions, and behavioral context 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (the schema's properties have descriptions, but the overall schema lacks a description), and the tool description provides no information about parameters. With 1 required parameter ('params') that is a complex nested object, the description fails to add any semantic 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new custom model wrapper'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_function' or 'create_tool' that also create resources, 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 includes 'ADMIN ONLY' which provides some usage context regarding permissions, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_model' or 'get_model', nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a note' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a note.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'note_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, resulting in a score of 3.
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 'Delete a note' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (note), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_chat' or 'delete_file', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes a 'note' from other deletable resources in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'update_note', leaving the agent to 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related resources), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral risks, parameter details, and usage guidance. For a tool that permanently removes data, this minimal description is insufficient.
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%, with one parameter ('command') completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'command' represents (e.g., a prompt identifier), its format, or examples. This fails to compensate 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 'Delete a prompt template' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('prompt template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_chat' or 'delete_file' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a soft or permanent deletion, which could be relevant 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the prompt to exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'update_prompt' or 'create_prompt'. With many sibling deletion tools, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' includes. For a tool with 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. Without annotations and with poor parameter documentation, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral and usage 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%, with one parameter ('function_id') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond implying a function identifier is needed, but doesn't specify format or constraints. With low coverage, it fails to compensate adequately, resulting in a minimal baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a specific function' clearly states the action (get) and resource (function), but it's vague about what 'details' entails and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_tool' or 'list_functions'. It's a basic purpose statement without specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_functions' or 'get_tool'. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a known function, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool makes a chat 'publicly accessible', implying a mutation with visibility changes, but doesn't cover permissions required, reversibility (e.g., can it be unshared?), rate limits, or what 'publicly accessible' entails (e.g., link generation, access controls). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('share a chat') and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps that hinder full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 (only 'Chat ID' as a label). The description adds no information about the parameter, such as what a chat ID is, where to find it, or format requirements. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter 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 ('share') and resource ('a chat'), specifying the action of making it publicly accessible. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_chat', 'clone_chat', and 'delete_chat' by focusing on sharing rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a chat ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_channel' (which might involve sharing). This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Archive a chat' without explaining what archiving entails (e.g., is it reversible, does it hide or remove data, are permissions required?). This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning.
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 an output schema (which might help), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility or effects, and while the output schema may provide return values, the description fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare minimum.
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 no parameter information beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, with only 1 parameter (chat_id), the tool is simple enough that the description's lack of detail is less critical, warranting a baseline near 4 for minimal complexity.
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 'Archive a chat' clearly states the action (archive) and resource (chat), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_chat' or explain what 'archive' means operationally, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_chat' or 'clone_chat'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases, offering minimal help 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool creates something with Python code, implying a write operation, but fails to address critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and key details. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and poor parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (id, name, type, content) are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'Python code' (mapping to 'content') and 'filter or pipe' (mapping to 'type'), but doesn't explain the purpose or constraints of 'id' or 'name', nor provide details on Python code requirements or type implications. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new function') with specific types ('filter or pipe') and implementation details ('with Python code'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tool' or 'create_model', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a function from those other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_tool' or 'create_model', nor are there any prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual cues mentioned. The description only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or constraints.
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. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions 'for RAG' which adds some context about purpose, but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter details, usage context, and behavioral transparency. For a creation tool with one required parameter, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.
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 no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. The input schema shows a 'params' object with 'name' and 'description' fields, but the description doesn't explain their semantics, constraints, or examples. This leaves key parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new knowledge base for RAG'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_knowledge_base' or 'delete_knowledge_base' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'create_folder', 'create_channel'), 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_knowledge_bases' or 'update_knowledge_base'. 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 full burden. It states it creates a tool with Python code, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and implementation 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 it's a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It states what it does but lacks crucial context like behavioral details and parameter explanations, making it incomplete for safe 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 mentions 'Python code' which hints at the 'content' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'id' (slug-format) or 'name' parameters, leaving them undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new custom tool'), specifying it involves Python code. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_function' or 'create_prompt' by focusing on tools, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_function' or 'update_tool'. The description implies creation but doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a channel and all its messages, implying a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., files, users), or error conditions (e.g., invalid channel_id). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a channel') and adds essential scope ('and all its messages'). Every word earns its place, making it highly 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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. The output schema might cover return values, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct usage, especially compared to sibling tools like 'delete_channel_message'.
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 0% description coverage (only 'Channel ID' with no context), and the description adds no parameter information. However, with only one required parameter (channel_id), the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but since there is one parameter, it's adjusted to 3. The description doesn't explain what a channel_id is, where to find it, or format requirements, leaving the schema to do all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a channel and all its messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_channel_message' (which deletes individual messages) and 'delete_chat' (which deletes chats rather than channels). However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent or reversible deletion, which would make it 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 (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible data loss), or when to choose 'delete_channel' over 'archive_chat' or 'delete_all_chats'. 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 full burden. 'Delete a file' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects linked resources, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a file.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action. Every sentence (though only one) earns its place by stating the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (implied but not detailed here), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on safety, permissions, side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with potential irreversible consequences, this minimal description is inadequate despite the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'File ID' as a string). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'file_id' represents (e.g., format, source). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, but the single parameter is straightforward, so 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 'Delete a file' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (file) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_folder' or 'delete_all_files' by specifying individual file deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_all_files' or mention file types, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_all_files' or 'delete_folder'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system files). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated data). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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 the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but misses critical context like behavioral risks, parameter details, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for safe and effective 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific memory', which hints at the 'memory_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what a memory ID is, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from 'list_memories'). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_all_memories' by specifying 'a specific' memory rather than all memories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_memory' or 'reset_memories', 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid memory_id), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion), or point to related tools like 'delete_all_memories' or 'update_memory'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context 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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the channel doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is somewhat complete but inadequate. It lacks parameter details and behavioral context, which are crucial since no annotations are provided. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to guide usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('channel_id') undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what a 'channel_id' is, where to find it, its format, or examples. The description fails to compensate 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific channel'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_channels' (which lists multiple channels) and 'update_channel' (which modifies channels). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_channel' over 'list_channels' for viewing channel information, or prerequisites like needing a channel ID. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'details' and 'file list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details. It earns its place but lacks depth.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but misses context like usage scenarios, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a simple retrieval tool, it's passable but 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%, with one parameter 'knowledge_id' documented only as 'Knowledge base ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond implying a knowledge base is needed. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline is moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'knowledge base details including file list', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' (which lists multiple) and 'create_knowledge_base' (which creates). However, it doesn't specify if this retrieves metadata, configuration, or full content, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a knowledge base ID, nor does it compare to siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' for browsing or 'update_knowledge_base' for modifications. The description assumes context without stating 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a prompt template, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the command doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a prompt template') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, parameter details, and behavioral aspects. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in guidance and transparency.
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 mentions 'by its command', which hints at the 'command' parameter, but doesn't explain what a 'command' is (e.g., a unique identifier, format examples) or provide any details beyond the schema's basic type. With one undocumented parameter, this adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a prompt template'), specifying it's retrieved 'by its command'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_prompts' (which lists all) and 'create_prompt' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid command), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_prompts' for browsing or 'create_prompt' for new templates. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'search' using 'semantic similarity', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Search memories using semantic similarity.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and method.
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 (semantic search), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a search operation with undefined parameters, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.
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 the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description doesn't compensate by explaining parameters like 'content' (query text) or 'k' (number of results), leaving their semantics unclear. It mentions 'semantic similarity' but doesn't clarify how the 'content' parameter is used in that context or what 'k' defaults to, failing to add value beyond 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: 'Search memories using semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('memories'), and method ('semantic similarity'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'search_files', which might offer alternative search methods or scopes.
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_memories' (which might list all memories without search) or 'search_files' (which searches a different resource), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether updates are reversible, if partial updates are allowed (name OR code), what happens when null values are provided, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place: 'Update' (action), 'a function's' (resource), 'name or code' (what can be modified). This is a model of efficiency despite being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling update tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address critical context: authentication requirements, error conditions, whether both name and content can be updated simultaneously, or how this differs from other function-related tools. The agent lacks sufficient information for confident tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions updating 'name or code,' which aligns with the schema's 'name' and 'content' parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only basic parameter names and types without semantic context. The description adds minimal value by indicating what can be updated but doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or the required function_id parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target resource ('a function's name or code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_channel, update_file_content, or update_model, which all follow similar 'update [resource]' patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing function), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like toggle_function or create_function. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a write 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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 the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral context and parameter meaning, 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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'content' is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline is 3 because the parameter count is low (1) and the tool's purpose is straightforward, but no semantic clarification is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('memory to your memory store'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_memory' or 'delete_memory' by specifying 'new', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reset_memories' or 'query_memories' beyond the verb.
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 'update_memory' or 'delete_memory'. The description implies creation of new memories but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context 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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether cloning affects the original chat, rate limits, or what 'to your account' entails (e.g., ownership changes). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should clarify behavioral aspects like effects on the original chat or authentication needs, leaving gaps in 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 adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'clone a shared chat'. It doesn't explain the 'chat_id' parameter's format, source, or constraints. With one parameter and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a minimal 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 ('clone') and resource ('a shared chat to your account'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'share_chat' or 'get_chat' by specifying the cloning action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a shared chat ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'share_chat' or 'create_chat', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new folder' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or the response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Create a new folder.') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly stating the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 creation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on permissions, error handling, and behavioral nuances, 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%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema but without description in the schema itself. The description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter's role, constraints, or format, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the single parameter.
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 'Create a new folder' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_folder' or 'delete_folder' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what kind of folder (e.g., file system folder, organizational folder) or context, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing parent folder permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a folder already exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_group'. 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 full burden. It states the tool creates a note, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the note is private/shared, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns note ID). The mention of 'markdown content' is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new note') and adds a useful detail ('with markdown content') without 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 the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), no annotations, and a clear but minimal input schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but more guidance on usage and transparency 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%, but the input schema clearly defines 'title' and 'content' parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'markdown content', which aligns with the schema's 'content' description. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, formats, or examples beyond what the schema provides, 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new note'), specifying that it includes 'markdown content'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_note' (modification) and 'delete_note' (removal), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar creation tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder' 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. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'triggered by a command' adds minimal context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful contextual detail about command triggering.
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) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral expectations for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by 'triggered by a command' (hinting at the 'command' parameter). It doesn't explain the three required parameters (command, title, content) or their relationships, leaving significant gaps despite the schema having no 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 a new prompt template') and the resource type ('prompt template'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_note' or 'create_tool'. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes it from 'update_prompt' or what makes a 'prompt template' unique in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is 'triggered by a command', which provides some context about when it might be used, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_prompt' or 'create_function', 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks critical details like error handling or return values, though the output schema may mitigate some gaps. It's minimally viable but has clear deficiencies.
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 mentions 'a message from a channel', hinting at the need for identifiers. It doesn't specify parameters like 'channel_id' or 'message_id' or their formats, offering only vague context. With one parameter (a nested object), this provides minimal compensation 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a message from a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'delete_channel' or 'delete_chat', but the specificity of 'channel message' is adequate for basic clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'delete_channel' and 'delete_chat', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'with pagination,' which hints at a paginated response, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get messages from a channel') and adds a key behavioral note ('with pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for its function.
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 messages with pagination), no annotations, and an existing output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits. It covers the basic purpose but misses elements that would make it fully adequate for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'channel' and 'pagination' context, but it doesn't explain the specific parameters (channel_id, skip, limit) or their semantics beyond what's inferred. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate, 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 action ('Get messages') and resource ('from a channel'), specifying the verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_channel' (which retrieves channel metadata) and 'post_channel_message' (which creates messages). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_chat' or other message-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 'get_chat' or 'list_channels', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing channel access. It only states the basic function without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details and history, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 input schema with one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps in transparency and guidance.
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%, with one parameter 'chat_id' undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name, such as format or constraints for 'chat_id'. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of compensation for the coverage gap keeps it at a minimal viable level.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'a chat's details and message history', making it specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_channel' or 'list_chats', 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_chats' (for listing chats) or 'get_channel' (for channel details). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, 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. It states it 'gets metadata' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in behavioral context and usage guidance that could hinder correct tool selection.
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 doesn't mention parameters at all, while the schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'File ID' with no format details). Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a specific file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_content' (which retrieves content) and 'list_files' (which lists multiple files). However, it doesn't specify what metadata is included, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_file' over 'get_file_content' (for content vs metadata) or 'list_files' (for multiple files vs one). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'extracted text content,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'extracted' entails (e.g., OCR processing). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary 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?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for effective tool selection despite the output schema covering returns.
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%, with one parameter ('file_id') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a file identifier is needed. It doesn't explain the 'file_id' format or source, so it partially compensates but leaves the parameter semantics 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 action ('Get') and resource ('extracted text content from a file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file' or 'search_files', which might retrieve different aspects of files, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_file' (which might retrieve metadata) or 'search_files' (which might list files). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' entail beyond members. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details for a specific group') and adds a key feature ('including members') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for a tool that might involve permissions or data sensitivity, leaving room for improvement in contextual coverage.
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 no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'group_id' parameter's format, sourcing, or constraints. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group'), specifying it retrieves 'details' and 'including members'. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential siblings like 'get_user' or 'list_groups', which might also provide group-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 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 group ID), contrast with 'list_groups' for browsing, or specify use cases like retrieving member lists for group management.
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 it 'Get details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling (e.g., if model_id is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details for a specific model') and adds useful specifics ('including system prompt and parameters'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context and parameter details. For a simple read operation with output schema support, it meets basic needs but could be more informative about usage and errors.
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%, with one parameter 'model_id' documented only as 'Model ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'model_id' is needed to identify the model. It doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, 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 'Get' and the resource 'details for a specific model', specifying what information is retrieved ('including system prompt and parameters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_models' (which lists models) and 'get_models_config' (which gets configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a model ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing models), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_models' for broader queries. The description assumes context without explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the return format. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific note') and includes the key constraint ('by ID'). No extraneous information is present, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic use. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter details, it lacks context on permissions, errors, and behavioral nuances. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in guiding 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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'note_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't specify format (e.g., string pattern), validation, or examples. Baseline is adjusted due to low coverage, but the description only partially compensates.
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 ('a specific note'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' (which retrieves multiple notes) by specifying retrieval by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_note' vs. other get_* tools beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid note ID), contrast with 'list_notes' for bulk retrieval, or specify error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool posts a message, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and an optional feature. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with nested parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks crucial behavioral and parametric context, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying parameters for channel ID, message content, and optional parent ID, but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., format of IDs, content constraints). With 1 parameter (a nested object with 3 sub-parameters), the baseline is 3 as it partially compensates for the schema gap but lacks detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Post a message') and target resource ('to a channel'), with an additional optional capability ('Optionally reply to a parent message'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_channel_message' or 'get_channel_messages' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'create_channel' or 'share_chat', which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access), exclusions (e.g., not for direct messages), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_channel' for channel creation or 'get_channel_messages' for reading messages. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Toggle' implies a mutation that changes state, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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), lack of annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects or parameter details. However, the presence of an output schema might help the agent understand return values, partially mitigating the gap.
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%, with one parameter ('function_id') undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying a function is involved, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of semantic details reduces this to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggle') and the resource ('a function's enabled/disabled state'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_function' or 'delete_function', which could handle similar resources but with different 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 prerequisites, context, or compare to sibling tools like 'update_function' or 'delete_function', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when only partial fields are provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about permissions, side effects, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema prevents this from being a complete failure, but more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description mentions 'name or description' which maps to two of the three parameters in the nested ChannelUpdateParam object. However, it doesn't mention the required 'channel_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain that name and description can be null. The description adds some value 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a channel's name or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_folder' or 'update_group', but the specificity of 'channel' provides some distinction. The description avoids tautology by explaining what gets updated rather than just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing channel_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_channel' or 'delete_channel'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient 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 full burden. 'Rename a folder' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID or duplicate names), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Rename a folder' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no extraneous 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 moderate complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter object containing 2 sub-parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on permissions, errors, or constraints, making it incomplete for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal semantic value. 'Rename a folder' implies parameters for folder identification and new name, aligning with the schema's 'folder_id' and 'name'. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure or name constraints) or usage details. With 0% coverage, the description 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 'Rename a folder' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (folder), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' or 'delete_folder' by specifying the update action. However, it doesn't mention that this only handles name changes versus other folder properties, which could be clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting folders), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_folder' (if it exists for other updates). Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ADMIN ONLY' (a permission requirement) but doesn't cover other critical aspects: whether the update is reversible, what happens to existing group members during the update, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical permission note. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters in a nested object, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description lacks details on permissions, behavioral traits, and parameter nuances. It covers the basics but leaves significant gaps for an admin-only mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions updating 'name or description,' which aligns with two of the three parameters in the nested GroupUpdateParam object (group_id, name, description). However, it doesn't explain the group_id parameter at all or clarify that name and description are optional (nullable). The description adds some value 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('group's name or description'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like update_user_role or update_channel, 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 like update_user_role or create_group. The 'ADMIN ONLY' note is a permission constraint, not usage guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with 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 full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving behavioral traits 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 with 1 parameter but nested properties), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics, relying on the output schema for return values.
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 mentions 'name or description' as updatable fields, which aligns with the schema's 'name' and 'description' parameters, adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the 'knowledge_id' parameter or the optional nature of 'name' and 'description', 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 ('Update') and resource ('knowledge base'), specifying what can be updated ('name or description'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_knowledge_base' (creation) and 'delete_knowledge_base' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_model' or 'update_user_role'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing knowledge base), exclusions, or comparisons to other update tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if they remain unchanged). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word ('Update a model's name, system prompt, or parameters') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without 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 the complexity (a mutation tool with 1 parameter that is a nested object), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks guidelines, behavioral details, and full parameter explanation. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'name, system prompt, or parameters', which partially maps to the nested properties (name, system_prompt, temperature, max_tokens) but doesn't explain the 'model_id' requirement or the structure of the 'params' object. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a model'), specifying what can be updated ('name, system prompt, or parameters'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_model' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_model' (destructive vs. modification). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_prompt' or 'update_tool' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing model ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creation vs. update), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_model' for initial setup or 'get_model' for checking current values. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens if only title or content is provided. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The existence of an output schema helps, but more disclosure about the update operation 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?
The description mentions 'title or content' which aligns with two of the parameters in the schema, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It doesn't mention the required 'note_id' parameter or explain the optional nature of title/content updates. The schema provides parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate despite 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 action ('Update') and resource ('a note's title or content'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'delete_note', but it's specific enough to understand what the tool does.
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_note' or 'delete_note', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'system notification banners' entails (e.g., active vs. all banners). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and a read operation, it could benefit from more context about what 'system notification banners' includes or behavioral 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline 4 for not being required 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 action ('Get') and resource ('system notification banners'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, but since there are no other banner-related tools in the sibling list, this is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, 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 full burden. 'List all team chat channels' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, permission requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (archived channels? private channels?). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.
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), 0 parameters, and moderate complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a list operation with many similar sibling tools and no annotations, it should provide more context about scope, limitations, or when to use versus alternatives to be truly 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not creating confusion about non-existent 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 action ('List') and resource ('all team chat channels'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_chats' or 'list_groups' - it just states what it does without comparative 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 sibling tools like 'get_channel' (for single channel details), 'list_chats', and 'list_groups', there's no indication of when this list operation is appropriate versus other listing or retrieval operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List your chats' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'your' means (e.g., current user's chats). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential behavioral complexity.
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 'List your chats' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly 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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a list operation with no annotations, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., scope, limits, or format), which could be important for an AI agent to use it effectively. It meets basic needs 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.
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 here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, 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 'List your chats' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('your chats'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chat' (which retrieves a specific chat) or 'list_channels' (which lists channels rather than chats), 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. With siblings like 'get_chat' (for specific chats) and 'list_channels' (for channels), there's no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites for choosing 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it lists files with metadata but doesn't explain what metadata is included, whether there's pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large result sets. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. However, as a list operation with many sibling tools and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about when to use it versus alternatives and what metadata is included to be fully 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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description appropriately doesn't attempt to document non-existent 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 action ('List') and resource ('all uploaded files with metadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically distinguish from sibling 'search_files' (which likely offers filtering capabilities), but it's still unambiguous about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'get_file'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contextual cues for selection among the many file-related tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering options, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all folders' entails (e.g., includes subfolders, excludes deleted ones). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all folders') and adds clarifying context ('for organizing chats'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (0 parameters, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are notable gaps despite the structured support.
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?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets minimal requirements without error.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('folders'), specifying their purpose ('for organizing chats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_folder' (singular retrieval) and 'create_folder' (creation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_chats' or 'list_files'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., workspace scope), or exclusions (e.g., archived folders). The description implies usage for chat organization but lacks explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List all functions' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope or limits). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes 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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values) and zero parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a list operation with no annotations, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., output format hints or constraints), leaving gaps that the output schema alone may not fully address.
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 parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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 functions'), specifying that it includes both 'filters and pipes'. It distinguishes the resource type from siblings like list_tools or list_models. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools beyond the resource name, which is why it scores 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. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings like get_function (which might retrieve a single function). Without any usage instructions, it leaves the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists groups but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions required, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifies output fields. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral context. With no annotations and an output schema, it adequately states what the tool does but doesn't cover usage scenarios or operational details, leaving room for improvement.
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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema 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 ('List') and resource ('all groups'), specifying the output fields (IDs, names, member counts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_group' (singular) by implying a bulk operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_users' or 'list_channels'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a group), or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'list_users' for users). The description is standalone with no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('List all knowledge bases') but lacks behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all knowledge bases') and specifies the returned data. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and a list operation that might involve behavioral nuances (e.g., large datasets, permissions), it lacks completeness for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could mention optional filters or scoping if applicable—though not required, this keeps it from 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 verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases'), specifying what information is returned ('IDs, names, and descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_knowledge_base' (singular retrieval) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_channels' or 'list_users' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with 'get_knowledge_base' for single-item retrieval, or specify scenarios like initial setup versus ongoing monitoring.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing memories but fails to describe key traits such as pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it returns everything at once). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring a 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
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 (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how memories are presented or limitations), and with no annotations, it should provide more guidance on usage. This results in an adequate but gapped score of 3.
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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info.
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 your stored memories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'query_memories' (which likely filters) and 'delete_memory' (which modifies), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.
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 'query_memories' or 'delete_memory', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios, resulting in a score of 2 for minimal 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 models, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'available' means in context. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'List all available models including custom models.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which should describe return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how models are listed, any limitations), and with no annotations, it does not fully compensate for missing details. It is adequate but has clear gaps in providing a comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
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 models including custom models.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('models'), and includes scope ('all available' and 'custom models'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_model' or 'get_models_config', which might retrieve specific models or configurations, so it lacks 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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing to 'get_model' for a single model or 'get_models_config' for configuration details. Without such guidance, users 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. 'List all your notes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'your' means contextually (e.g., user-specific vs. global). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying scope ('all your').
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. However, with no annotations and a read operation that might have hidden complexities (e.g., pagination, permissions), it lacks completeness. The output schema helps, but behavioral context is insufficient for a tool with potential user-specific data access.
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 here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, 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 'List all your notes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and specifies scope ('all your'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_note' (single note) and 'create_note' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_files' or 'list_chats' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'search_files' for filtered queries. 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 full burden. It states 'List all prompt templates' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' entails (e.g., archived items). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List all prompt templates') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format hints, limitations), which is needed since no annotations are provided. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't add enough beyond the name to fully guide usage.
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 here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all prompt templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('prompt templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_prompt' (singular) and 'create_prompt' (creation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'list_tools' or 'list_models'.
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, timing considerations, or how it differs from other listing tools (e.g., 'list_templates' if existed). Usage is implied by the name alone, lacking explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: no information on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, output format, or whether it's read-only. 'List' implies a read operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information about what the tool lists.
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 (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are gaps for a tool in a server with many siblings. It's complete enough for basic understanding but not fully helpful for optimal agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, meeting the baseline 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 action ('List') and resource ('all available tools'), specifying the types (MCP, OpenAPI, custom). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tool' (single tool) and 'get_tool_servers' (servers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_channels'), though the resource type makes it clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare to siblings like 'get_tool' (for a specific tool) or 'get_tool_servers' (for servers). The description is standalone without 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the admin requirement (helpful) but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what happens to the user's access, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details about parameters, behavioral implications, error handling, and sibling tool relationships that would be 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameters documented only as 'Group ID' and 'User ID to add/remove'), and the description provides no parameter information beyond what the schema minimally offers. It doesn't explain what group_id or user_id represent, their format, or where to find them, failing to compensate for the 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 ('Remove') and target ('a user from a group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'delete_user' (which deletes users entirely) or 'delete_group' (which deletes groups), missing 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use (admin permissions required). It doesn't specify when NOT to use or mention alternatives like 'delete_user' for removing users from the system entirely, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or what 're-embed' entails (e.g., reprocessing, indexing). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on why to use this tool, what 're-embed' means operationally, and behavioral traits, which are crucial for a tool that likely involves data processing or updates.
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 need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as per rules.
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 ('Re-embed') and resource ('all memories in the vector database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'update_memory', which would require more context about what 're-embed' entails versus those 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 prerequisites, timing, or compare to siblings like 'delete_all_memories' or 'query_memories', leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone without explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions wildcard support, which adds some context beyond basic functionality, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error conditions, or performance implications. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key feature (wildcard support). There is no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding, 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 moderate complexity (search operation with one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and comparison with siblings, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 specifies that the 'filename' parameter is a 'pattern' and provides an example with wildcards ('*.pdf'), clarifying usage that isn't evident from the schema alone. With only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail constraints like pattern syntax or length limits.
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 ('search') and resource ('files'), specifying it searches by 'filename pattern'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_files' by focusing on pattern-based searching rather than listing all files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_file' or 'delete_file', which slightly limits 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 like 'list_files' (for unfiltered listing) or 'get_file' (for retrieving a specific known file). It mentions wildcard support, which hints at usage for pattern matching, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it overwrites or appends content, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks context on behavior and parameters. The description is minimal but covers the basics, 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.
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 adds meaning by specifying 'extracted text content' and 'file', which helps interpret the parameters. Since there's only 1 parameter (a nested object with 'file_id' and 'content'), the description compensates well, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('extracted text content of a file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_file' or 'update_note', which might have overlapping functionality, 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 like 'update_file', 'update_note', and 'get_file_content', there's no indication of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, side effects (e.g., if updates affect other systems), error handling, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying what can be updated.
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 1 parameter but nested object properties), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and full parameter context, 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only parameter names like 'tool_id', 'name', 'content'), but the description clarifies that 'name' and 'code' are updatable fields, providing semantics that the schema lacks. However, it doesn't detail the 'tool_id' parameter or optional/null 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 action ('Update') and resource ('a tool's name or code'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies what can be updated (name or code), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tool' or 'delete_tool', though the verb 'Update' inherently suggests modification rather than creation or 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tool), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_tool' or 'delete_tool'. This leaves the agent without 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. It mentions 'ADMIN ONLY,' hinting at authorization needs, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits beyond basic access control.
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 that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get details for a specific user' and 'ADMIN ONLY') adds essential value without 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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on authorization depth and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.
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%, with one parameter ('user_id') undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, such as format examples or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' or 'list_users' beyond the 'specific user' aspect, which is why it doesn't reach 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'ADMIN ONLY,' which provides clear context about when to use this tool (i.e., only with admin privileges). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_current_user' for non-admin scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the admin requirement but lacks details on whether deletion is permanent, reversible, has side effects, or what the output contains. For a destructive operation, 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 that each add value: the first states the action, and the second provides critical usage context. There's zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It misses parameter details, behavioral traits like permanence, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain results, leaving gaps for the 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 doesn't mention the model_id parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter information reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a custom model'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_chat or delete_file, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY,' indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like delete_all_chats or provide exclusions, preventing a perfect score.
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', indicating authentication needs, but doesn't describe what 'Export' entails (e.g., format, scope, whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects like file generation, or rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two phrases: 'Export full system configuration. ADMIN ONLY.' Every word earns its place by stating the action, resource, and a key constraint, with no wasted information. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.
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 are 0 parameters, schema description coverage is 100%, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to cover inputs or return values. However, as a configuration export tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., output format, admin requirements details). The description is minimal but adequate for the low complexity, though it 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.
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 ('Export') and resource ('full system configuration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_system_config' or 'get_models_config', which might also retrieve configuration data, 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'ADMIN ONLY', which provides implied context about when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_system_config' or other configuration-related tools, and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond admin access.
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 the admin requirement, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this operation is reversible, what happens if the user is already in the group, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical behavioral context. No wasted words or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and permission context. However, it lacks parameter guidance and doesn't explain what the operation returns or potential side effects. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more given the tool's complexity and zero annotation coverage.
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 descriptions. The tool description mentions 'user' and 'group' but doesn't explain what parameters are needed or their semantics. With 1 parameter (a nested object with group_id and user_id), the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 user to a group') with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_user_from_group' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other user/group management tools like 'update_user_role' or 'create_group'.
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 explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY' indicating permission requirements. It implies when to use this tool versus 'remove_user_from_group' for the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus other user management tools like 'update_user_role' or prerequisites 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 full burden. It mentions the admin requirement, which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether creation is irreversible, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core action and critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or 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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity, the description is minimally complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error cases) to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (name and description fields). The schema itself documents these parameters adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding, 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder', but the resource specificity is adequate for basic clarity.
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 explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'update_group' for modifying existing groups, leaving some guidance gaps.
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 value by stating 'Removes all users from the group', which clarifies the destructive impact beyond just deletion. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response behavior, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Delete a group', 'ADMIN ONLY', 'Removes all users from the group') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
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 as a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description is partially complete: it covers purpose, admin requirement, and behavioral impact. However, with an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it still lacks parameter details and full behavioral context, making it adequate but with gaps.
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%, and the description doesn't mention the 'group_id' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, such as explaining what a group ID is or how to obtain it, which is insufficient given the 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_user' or 'delete_all_chats', which would require mentioning it targets groups specifically versus other entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. It doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'update_group' instead for modifications or 'delete_user' for different entities, but the admin constraint is a strong usage guideline.
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 mentions the admin requirement, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on what the configuration includes, potential rate limits, or response format. This is adequate but leaves gaps 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 extremely concise—just two short sentences—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical usage constraint, making it highly 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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and admin restriction, which are essential. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context, but the output schema mitigates this gap.
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 need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it efficiently handles the no-parameter case without unnecessary elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('default models configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_model' or 'list_models' beyond the 'default' and 'configuration' aspects, which is why 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'ADMIN ONLY,' providing clear context about when to use this tool based on user permissions. It doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, but the admin restriction is a strong usage guideline that helps the agent decide appropriateness.
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 the 'ADMIN ONLY' permission requirement, which is valuable context beyond what the empty input schema provides. However, it doesn't describe what 'system configuration' includes, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), response format, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds critical permission context. There's zero wasted language and it's perfectly 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 tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. The 'ADMIN ONLY' warning addresses the main complexity consideration. However, for a system configuration tool, the description could benefit from specifying what configuration data is returned or its scope, though the output schema may cover this.
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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for this situation is 4. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'system configuration', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_models_config' or 'export_config' that might also retrieve configuration data, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'ADMIN ONLY', providing clear context about permission requirements. This helps the agent understand when to use it based on user privileges. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'export_config' or 'get_models_config', which could also provide configuration-related data.
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 the admin requirement, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what the output contains, leaving gaps in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key constraint ('ADMIN ONLY') with zero waste. Every word contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete by stating the purpose and admin requirement. However, it could benefit from clarifying the scope (e.g., MCP vs. OpenAPI connections) or output format 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.
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%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('tool server connections'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools (like 'get_tool' or 'list_tools') that might handle different aspects of tools, so it lacks specific differentiation.
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 explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_tool' for individual tools), so guidance is clear but incomplete.
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 the irreversible destructive nature ('Cannot be undone!'), which is crucial behavioral context for a deletion tool. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or response format, but the warning adequately covers the primary risk.
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?
Two sentences total: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical warning. Both sentences earn their place with zero waste, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded for immediate visibility.
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 0-parameter destructive tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, irreversible warning. It doesn't need to explain return values (output schema covers that) or parameters. The only minor gap is lack of explicit permissions or confirmation 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and warning.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('all your chats'), with specific scope ('all') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_chat (singular). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope combination without tautology.
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 warning ('WARNING: Cannot be undone!'), suggesting this is for irreversible bulk deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like delete_chat or provide specific 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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature of the operation ('Delete... and all its files') and the irreversible consequence ('Cannot be undone!'), which are critical behavioral traits for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the critical warning. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good coverage of the critical behavioral aspects. It clearly communicates the irreversible nature and scope of deletion. The main gap is the lack of parameter guidance, but given the output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward, it's reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'knowledge_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format it expects or where to find it. While the tool name implies what parameter is needed, the description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's already obvious.
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') and resource ('a knowledge base and all its files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_file' or 'delete_folder' which target different resources. It provides precise scope information about what gets deleted.
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 includes a clear warning ('WARNING: Cannot be undone!') that signals when to use this tool cautiously, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'archive_chat' or compare with other deletion tools. The warning provides important contextual guidance about irreversible consequences.
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 communicates critical behavioral traits: the irreversible destructive nature ('Cannot be undone!') and the authorization requirement ('ADMIN ONLY'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens to user data or dependencies) or response format, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information in just three short phrases. Every element ('Delete a user', 'ADMIN ONLY', 'WARNING: Cannot be undone!') earns its place by conveying critical purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral warnings without any wasted words.
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 this is a high-stakes destructive operation with no annotations, the description does well on purpose and warnings but has significant gaps. It lacks parameter details (0% schema coverage) and doesn't mention the output schema's existence. For a tool that permanently deletes users, more context about parameters and potential outcomes would improve completeness.
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 only 'user_id' documented as a string. The description provides no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'user_id' represents, its format, or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It directly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_chat', 'delete_file', or 'update_user_role' by focusing exclusively on user deletion.
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 provides usage guidance with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating this tool requires administrative privileges. It also warns 'Cannot be undone!', which implicitly suggests caution and distinguishes it from reversible operations like 'archive_chat' or 'update_user_role'.
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 states this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks depth 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 an output schema exists (which likely covers return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the purpose and return fields, but could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs) since annotations are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, but this is acceptable given the baseline. It implies no inputs are required, which aligns with 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently authenticated user's profile', specifying it returns ID, name, email, role, and permissions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_user' (which likely retrieves other users) by focusing on the authenticated user only.
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 when needing the authenticated user's profile, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'get_user' is for other users, though this can be inferred from context.
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 the admin-only requirement, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or any rate limits, leaving the agent to infer from the output schema alone.
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 in the first phrase and adds critical constraint in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly 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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and admin requirement, but could benefit from mentioning the output format or any limitations, though the output schema mitigates this gap.
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?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, maintaining clarity about the tool's zero-input nature.
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 users') and resource ('in Open WebUI'), with no tautology or vagueness. It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_user' (singular) or 'delete_user' (different operation).
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 'ADMIN ONLY', providing clear context about required permissions. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' for individual user details or 'update_user_role' for modifications, leaving some guidance gaps.
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 a destructive operation ('Delete'), requires admin privileges ('ADMIN ONLY'), and is irreversible ('Cannot be undone!'). It doesn't mention rate limits or specific error conditions, but covers the most important safety aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short phrases that each earn their place: the core action, permission requirement, and critical warning. It's front-loaded with the most important information and has zero 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides essential context about permissions and irreversibility. It doesn't explain what 'all files' encompasses or potential side effects, but given the output schema exists to document return values, the description focuses appropriately on the critical behavioral warnings.
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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral warnings rather than parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete all files') and resource ('files'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'delete_file' by specifying 'all files' rather than individual deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_all_chats' or 'delete_all_memories' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'ADMIN ONLY' indicating permission requirements and 'WARNING: Cannot be undone!' specifying irreversible consequences. This clearly communicates when to use (admin contexts requiring mass deletion) and when not to use (non-admin contexts or when reversibility is needed).
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 indicates a destructive action ('Delete all your memories') and warns about irreversibility ('Cannot be undone!'), which are critical behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving some 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core action and follow with a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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) and no annotations, the description does well by stating the action and irreversibility. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, permissions, or what 'memories' entails, and while an output schema exists, the description could benefit from more context to fully guide usage in this sensitive scenario.
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 adds no parameter details, focusing on the action and warning. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear operational 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 action ('Delete all your memories') and the resource ('memories'), making the purpose clear and specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_memory' (singular) and 'reset_memories' (which may imply a different operation), avoiding tautology by not just restating the name.
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 includes a strong warning ('WARNING: Cannot be undone!'), which implicitly advises caution and suggests this tool should be used only when permanent deletion is intended. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_memory' (for single deletions) or 'reset_memories' (if available), missing explicit sibling differentiation.
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 the ADMIN requirement and lists valid roles, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if role changes affect user access immediately), error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—three short phrases that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second specifies permissions, and the third lists valid values. 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 complexity (a mutation with permission requirements) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, and parameter semantics. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like side effects or error handling.
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 the valid role values ('admin', 'user', 'pending'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'New role' description. It doesn't explain the 'user_id' parameter, but with only 1 parameter (a nested object with two properties), the description provides useful context for the 'role' field.
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 ('Update a user's role') with the resource ('user') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_user' or 'get_user' by focusing on role modification rather than user lifecycle management. It's precise about what the tool does.
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?
It explicitly states 'ADMIN ONLY', providing clear context on when to use this tool (only for administrators) and when not to use it (for non-admins). This directly addresses permission prerequisites, making usage guidelines very clear.
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:

[![open-webui-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/troylar/open-webui-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/troylar/open-webui-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![open-webui-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/troylar/open-webui-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/troylar/open-webui-mcp-server)

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/troylar/open-webui-mcp-server'

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